The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20130739 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_FINAL_20130911FINAL Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Beaufort County, North Carolina EEP Project ID No. 95015 EEP Contract No. 003986 Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104• - 040040 Y EcosYstein 4 PROGRAM Prepared for: NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699 -1652 September 2013 ®"Phis document ivas printed using 100% recycled Pape) OMM U/ CAR 0 L ��11Ii111 FINAL Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Beaufort County, North Carolina EEP Project ID No. 95015 Tar - Pamlico River Basin: 03020104 - 040040 Prepared for: N ��t�eme t PROGRAM NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Prepared by: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc_ r 8400 Regency Parkway Suite 600 Cary, North Carolina 27518 ,.aker Phone: 919.463.5488 Fax' 919.463.5490 September 2013 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT — FINAL DRAFT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore 3,274 linear feet (LF) of perennial and intermittent stream and 2.8 acres (AC) of riparian wetlands along two unnamed tributaries (UT2 and UT3) to St. Clair Creek in Beaufort County, North Carolina (NC) (Figure 2.1). The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site (project) is located in Beaufort County, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. The project site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) subbasin 03 -03 -07 and the Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03020104 - 040040 of the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. The purpose of the project is to restore stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions along areas where the impaired stream channels flow through the site. Examination of the available hydrology and hydric soils data indicate that there are favorable conditions for the restoration of a headwater stream and wetland ecosystem. The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project will involve the restoration of a Coastal Plain Headwater Small Stream Swamp system (NC WAM 2010, Schafale and Weakley 1990) which has been impaired due to past agricultural conversion and silviculture. Due to the productivity and accessibility of these smaller stream and wetland systems, many have experienced heavy human disturbance. UT2 and UT3 have been ditched and drained numerous times in the past, most recently during the summer of 2010; and two waterfowl impoundments were constructed by installing water control structures at the outlets of both UT2 and UT3. Restoration practices on UT2 and UT3 will involve restoring the remnant headwater valleys, reconnecting the stream to the relic floodplain, and restoring diffuse flows to abandoned wetland floodplains and hydric soils areas previously drained by ditching activities. The existing ditches within the restoration area will be partially filled, to decrease surface and subsurface drainage and raise the local water table, or graded to promote diffuse flow into the restored system. The project will include removal of the existing waterfowl impoundments and water control structures. Vegetated buffers in excess of 50 feet will be established along both sides of the reaches. A recorded conservation easement consisting of 17.43 AC will protect the site in perpetuity. Based on the NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program's (NCEEP) 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) Plan, the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project area is located in an existing targeted local watershed (TLW) within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin ( http:// www .nceep.net/services /resiplans/ FINAL %2ORBRP %2OTar - Pamlico %2O2O11O523.pdf). The restoration strategy for the Tar - Pamlico River Basin targets specific projects that will promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving wetlands, streams, and riparian buffers. The proposed project aligns with RBRP priorities, which focus on restoring ditched streams and projects that reduce sediment and nutrient impacts. The proposed project areas are shown in Figure 17.2 and described briefly in Tables ES.1 and ES.2. The primary restoration goals of the project are to improve ecologic functions to the impaired areas within the Tar - Pamlico River Basin as described below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries across the site, • Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the estuary, • Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs, • Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood processes, and • Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a permanent conservation easement To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified: MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT • Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and allowing diffuse flow, providing the streams access to their floodplains, • Increase aquatic habitat value by allowing natural microtopography to form, • Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, and within the wetland areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature, • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and • Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments during the monitoring period. Table ES.1 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams) St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 a Reach A W A a Comment Unnamed Tributaries (Reaches UT2 and UT3) Restoration will consist of filling the channelized portions of stream and restoring 12 +57 to valley topography. The system will be allowe U'2 R 2,660 2,133 1:1 2,133 33 +91 to form on its own, as a multi - thread channel headwater stream within the valley. (DA stream type) Restoration will consist of filling the 11 +02 to channelized portions of stream and restoring 18 +57 and valley topography. The system will be allowe U'3 R 1,075 1,141 1:1 1,141 18 +91 to to form on its own, as a multi - thread channel 22 +78 headwater stream within the valley. (DA stream type) Total 3,735 3,274 3,274 *Existing Reach lengths are approximate and calculated by measuring the lengths of the main ditches that convey the UT2 and UT3 drainages MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Table ES.2 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands) St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan — EEP Project No. 95015 ^ � o Comments Wetland Along UT2 Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the ditches that currently direct surface and subsurface drainage directly to the channelized stream. Wetland hydrology will be reintroduced to drained R 0.0 1.1 1:1 1.1 areas of hydric soil and overbank flooding regimes will be restored. Planted pines and invasive species vegetation will be removed and appropriate wetland hardwood species will be planted. Wetland Along UT3 Riparian wetland restoration will involve removal of the ditches that currently direct surface and subsurface drainage directly to the channelized stream. Wetland hydrology will be reintroduced to drained R 0.0 1.7 1:1 1.7 areas of hydric soil and overbank flooding regimes will be restored. Planted pines and invasive species vegetation will be removed and appropriate wetland hardwood species will be planted. TOTALS 0.0 2.8 1:1 2.8 This mitigation plan was developed in conformance with the requirements of the following: • Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8, paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). • NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program In -Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010. These documents govern NCEEP operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES .......................................... ............................... 1 -1 2.0 SITE SELECTION ............................................................................................................. ............................... 2 -1 2.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DIRECTIONS TO PROJECT SITE .............................................. ............................... 2 -1 2.2 SITE SELECTION ................................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -1 2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................ ............................... 2 -2 2.2.2 Successional Trends ..................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -2 2.3 VICINITY MAP .................................................................................................................. ............................... 2 -4 2.4 WATERSHED MAP ................................................................................................................ ............................2 -5 2.5 SOILS MAP ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -6 2.6 CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP ............................................................................................. ............................... 2 -7 2.7 HISTORICAL CONDITIONS MAP ......................................................................................... ............................... 2 -8 2.8 LIDAR MAP ..................................................................................................................... ............................... 2 -9 2.9 SITE PHOTOGRAPHS ........................................................................................................ ............................... 2 -10 3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ............................................................................. ............................... 3 -1 3.1 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT SUMMARY INFORMATION ............................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.1.1 Potential Constraints ................................................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 3.2 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT FIGURE ........................................................................... ............................... 3 -1 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION ........................................................................................... ............................... 4 -1 5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS .................................................................................. ............................... 5 -1 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE .................................................................................... ............................... 6 -1 7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN .......................................................................................... ............................... 7 -1 7.1 TARGET STREAM TYPE(S), WETLAND TYPE(S), AND PLANT COMMUNITIES ..................... ............................... 7 -1 7.1.1 Target Stream Types ........................................................................................................ ............................... 7 -1 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types ...................................................................................................... ............................... 7 -1 7.1.3 Target Plant Communities ............................................................................................... ............................... 7 -2 7.2 DESIGN PARAMETERS ....................................................................................................... ............................... 7 -2 7.3 DATA ANALYSES .............................................................................................................. ............................... 7 -4 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .................................................................................................... ............................... 8 -1 9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ..................................................................................... ............................... 9 -1 9.1 STREAM MONITORING - REACH UT2 & UT3 ................................................................... ............................... 9 -1 9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions ..................................................................... ............................... 9 -1 9.1.2 Photo Reference Stations ............................................................................................. ............................... 9 -1 9.1.3 Bed Material Analyses ................................................................................................. ............................... 9 -2 9.2 WETLAND MONITORING ................................................................................................... ............................... 9 -2 9.2.1 Groundwater Data Collection ..................................................................................... ............................... 9 -2 9.2.2 Hydrology ....................................................................................................................... ............................9 -2 9.2.3 Photo Reference Stations ............................................................................................. ............................... 9 -3 9.3 VEGETATION MONITORING ............................................................................................... ............................... 9 -3 9.4 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MONITORING .................................................................... ............................... 9 -4 10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................... ............................... 10 -1 11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................ ............................... 11 -1 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ............................................................................ ............................... 12 -1 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES .......................................................................................... ............................... 13 -1 14.0 OTHER INFORMATION ............................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 14.1 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -1 14.2 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... ............................... 14 -3 15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ................................................ ............................... 15 -1 16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA .................................................. ............................... 16 -1 16.1 USACE ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION FORMS - PER REGIONAL SUPPLEMENT TO 1987 MANUAL..... 16 -2 16.2 NCWAM FORMS — EXISTING WETLANDS ...................................................................... ............................... 16 -3 16.3 NCDWQ STREAM CLASSIFICATION FORMS ................................................................... ............................... 16 -4 16.4 FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORM ....................................................................... ............................... 16 -5 16.5 FEMA COMPLIANCE - EEP FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS CHECKLIST ........................... ............................... 16 -6 16.6 BUFFER RULES COMPLIANCE .......................................................................................... ............................... 16 -7 17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES ................. ............................... 17 -1 17.1 CHANNEL MORPHOLOGY (ROSGEN ANALYSIS) .............................................................. ............................... 17 -1 17.1.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... ............................... 17 -1 17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions .................................................................... ............................... 17 -5 17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators .......................................................................... ............................... 17 -8 17.2 BANKFULL VERIFICATION ANALYSIS ............................................................................. ............................... 17 -9 17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge ............................................................................... ............................... 17 -9 17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves) ......................... ............................... 17 -10 17.3 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS ................................................................................ ............................... 17 -11 17.3.1 Methodologv ............................................................................................................. ..........................17 -11 17.3.2 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge ..................................................... ............................... 17 -13 17.4 EXISTING VEGETATION ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... ............................... 17 -13 17.5 SITE WETLANDS ........................................................................................................... ............................... 17 -13 17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment ..................................................................... ............................... 17 -13 17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations .................................................................. ............................... 17 -14 17.5.3 Climatic Conditions ............................................................................................. ............................... 17 -15 17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization ........................................................................... ............................... 17 -16 17.5.5 Soil Characterization ............................................................................................ ............................... 17 -0 17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization ....................................................................... ............................... 17 -0 17.6 REFERENCE WETLANDS .................................................................................................. ............................... 17 -0 17.61 Wetland Descriptions ............................................................................................ ............................... 17 -0 17.62 Hydrological Characterization ............................................................................. ............................... 17 -1 17.63 Soil Characterization ............................................................................................ ............................... 17 -3 17.64 Plant Community Characterization ....................................................................... ............................... 17 -3 17.7 RESTORATION OF WETLAND HYDROLOGY ..................................................................... ............................... 17 -5 17.7.1 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings .................................................................. ...........................17 -5 17.8 SITE CONSTRUCTION ....................................................................................................... ............................... 17 -8 17.8.1 Construction Sequence .......................................................................................... ............................... 17 -8 17.8.2 Other Construction Elements ................................................................................ ............................... 17 -9 18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS ................................................................. ............................... 18 -1 19.0 APPENDIX E — LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT ......................................... ............................... 19 -1 20.0 APPENDIX F — HEADWATER REFERENCE INFORMATION .............................. ............................... 20 -1 21.0 APPENDIX G — JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION .................... ............................... 21 -1 22.0 APPENDIX H — RESPONSE TO EEP COMMENTS ON DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN ..................... 22 -1 23.0 APPENDIX I — NCIRT COMMENTS ON FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN AND RESPONSE. 23 -1 24.0 APPENDIX J — NCIRT FINAL APPROVAL LETTER .............................................. ............................... 24 -1 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VII 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Streams) Table ES.2 St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Overview (Wetlands) Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Table 4.1 Baseline Information Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT1: Stream Channel Classification Level II Table 17.2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations Table 17.3 Design Discharge and Sediment Transport Data Summary Table 17.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages Table 17.5 NRCS Soil Series (Onslow County Soil Survey, USDA -SCS, 1984) Table 17.6 Reference Wetland Hydrologic Parameters — Hoffman Forest Site Table 17.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species Table 17.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VIII 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Vicinity Map Figure 2.2 Watershed Map Figure 2.3 Soils Map Figure 2.4 Current Conditions Plan View Figure 2.5 Historical Conditions Plan View Figure 2.6 LiDAR Map Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map Figure 17.1 Existing Ditch Cross - Sections for Reach UT2 and UT3 Figure 17.2 Mitigation Work Plan Figure 17.3 Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References Figure 17.4 Sediment Particle Size Distribution Figure 17.5 Monitoring Well Locations Map Figure 17.6 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 1 -3 Compared to Local Rainfall (Apri12012 through January 2013) Figure 17.7 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 4 -5 Compared to Local Rainfall (Apri12012 through January 2013) Figure 17.8 Reference Wetland Location Map MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IX 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A Site Protection Instruments Appendix B Baseline Information Data Appendix C Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses Appendix D Project Plan Sheets Appendix E Licensed Soil Scientist Report Appendix F Headwater Reference Information Appendix G Jurisdictional Wetland Determination Appendix H Response to EEP Comments on Draft Mitigation Plan Appendix I NCIRT Comments on Final Draft Mitigation Plan and Response Appendix J NCIRT Final Approval Letter MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE X 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 1.0 RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) develops River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRPs) to guide its mitigation activities within each of the state's 17 major river basins. RBRPs designate specific watersheds that exhibit both the need and opportunity for wetland, stream and riparian buffer restoration. These watersheds, designated as Targeted Local Watersheds (TLWs), receive priority for EEP planning and restoration project funds. The 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin RBRP identified cataloguing unit (HUC) 03020104 - 040040 as a TLW (http: // www .nceep.net/services /reslplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OTar - Pamlico %2020110523 .pdf). The Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed is located in HUC 03020104 - 040040. The sub - watershed covers 70 square miles, including 130 miles of stream. Approximately 54 percent of stream reaches within the sub - watershed lack adequate riparian buffers. Over half of the sub - watershed is open water mostly comprised of the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers. The remainder of the sub - watershed is characterized by forested wetlands (33 percent of total area), agriculture (14 percent of total area), and developed land (2 percent of the total area) (EEP, 2010). Agricultural development, disturbance of natural riparian buffers (timber harvesting) and other various land- disturbing activities in the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed have negatively impacted both water quality and bank stability along the mouths of the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers and there various tributaries. To improve watershed health, one of the 2010 Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities emphasized the need for increased implementation of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) in the Pamlico and Pungo Rivers sub - watershed. Nutrients, sedimentation, streambank erosion, channel modification and loss of wetlands and riparian buffers are major stressors within this TLW. Additionally, water quality monitoring conducted by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality found high levels of Chlorophyll a in the Pamlico River near the mouth of St. Clair Creek (DWQ Tar - Pamlico River Basin Water Quality Plan, 2010). The nearest assessed reach downstream of the proposed project is the Pamlico River at Hickory Point near South Creek (Station ID 09059000). The Pamlico River in this reach is classified as SB; NSW (SB- Primary Recreation, Salt Water; NSW- Nutrient Sensitive Water) (http: // portal. ncdenr .org /c /document_libEgy /get _file ?uuid= abc27fa8 -73 ae- 4a81 -a6c3 - 5cdb213d3d2a &_groupld= 38364). The proposed project aligns with RBRP goals, which focus on restoring wetland and riparian area values such as maintaining and enhancing water quality, increasing storage of floodwaters, and improving fish and wildlife habitat. The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project provides an opportunity to improve water quality and ecological functions within the TLW. The primary restoration goals of the project are described below: • Create geomorphically stable conditions along the unnamed tributaries on the site, • Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving waters, • Protect and improve water quality by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs, • Restore stream and wetland hydrology by connecting historic flow paths and promoting natural flood processes, • Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat in perpetuity by establishing a permanent conservation easement, To accomplish these goals, the following objectives have been identified: MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT • Restore existing channelized streams by restoring the relic headwater valley and providing access to their floodplains, • Increase aquatic habitat value by creating naturally formed microtopography, • Plant native species riparian buffer vegetation within the headwater valley and floodplain areas, protected by a permanent conservation easement, to increase stormwater runoff filtering capacity, decrease erosion, and shade the stream to decrease water temperature, • Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat through improved substrate and in- stream cover, addition of woody debris, and reduction of water temperature, and • Control invasive species vegetation within the project area and if necessary continue treatments during the monitoring period. The project goals will directly address stressors identified in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin RBRP, namely degraded riparian conditions, channel modification, and excess sediment and nutrient inputs. The proposed natural channel design approach will result in a stable riparian headwater stream and wetland system that will reduce sediment and nutrient loading to the Pamlico and Pungo River sub - watershed, while improving water quality conditions that support terrestrial and aquatic species. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.0 SITE SELECTION 2.1 Project Description and Directions to Project Site The St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site (site) is located in Beaufort County, NC, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath, as shown on the Project Site Vicinity Map (Figure 2.1). To access the site from Raleigh, follow Interstate 40 east to Interstate 440 west and take the US Highway 264 east exit. Near the city of Greenville, NC, take exit 73B to stay on US 264 east towards Washington, NC. From Washington, stay on US 264 east until NC 92/99 splits to the right from US 264 east. Take NC 92/99 for approximately 11 miles and turn left onto Peoples Road. Continue on Peoples Road for approximately 2 miles. Access to the site is via the farm road on the right. 2.2 Site Selection The site is located in the NC Division of Water Quality ( NCDWQ) subbasin 03 -03 -07 of the Tar - Pamlico River Basin (Figure 2.2). The site includes two unnamed headwater tributaries (UTs) to St. Clair Creek and areas of previously disturbed wetlands. Soils and topographic information (Figures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6) indicate that the area once supported a headwater stream and wetland complex. Like many headwater systems in the Mid - Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic region, the area was drained for agricultural and silvicultural production. Drainage ditches along the UTs have disconnected the stream from their historic floodplains. The relic valley signatures for the UTs are visible from LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) imagery of the site (Figure 2.6), and were verified during field investigations. The UT2 project reach is shown as a solid blue -line stream on the USGS topographic quadrangle map. UT2 is also shown as a perennial stream along the lower portions of the site on the Beaufort County Soil Survey. UT3 is not shown on the USGS or County Soil Survey; however, the presence of historic valleys can be seen from LiDAR imagery for the site and observed during field investigations. Field evaluations of intermittent/ perennial status and use of NCDWQ stream assessment protocols were difficult for UT2 since the channels on site were all maintained with an excavator during the late summer of 2010. As a result, no geomorphic or vegetation characteristics were evident along the reach. However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B. Field investigations and photographs taken during March 2010, prior to clean -out, were used to assist in determining jurisdictional status; however, the channels at that time had been impacted by recent timber harvest. The NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Manual, Version 4.11 indicates that in situations with ditching and modified natural streams, contour crenulations and the presence of linear soil mapping units can be used to determine the presence of a natural stream channel. The LIDAR imagery for the site shows a distinct topographic valley signature along much of UT2, and the county soil survey shows a linear soil mapping unit just downstream of the project limits, as well as a steam feature that extends into the project site. In addition, the landowner provided information regarding observations of biological life during the cleaning of the channelized stream system. He had observed fish and turtles in the channel, along with submerged aquatic vegetation. Based on these observations and the available drainage area of the UT (89 acres), the stream was determined to be a perennial stream channel and appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance. Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Like UT2, the UT3 channel was maintained during the summer of 2010; therefore, geomorphic and vegetation characteristics were difficult to assess to determine jurisdictional status. However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B. The same analysis as described for UT2 was conducted for UT3. The LiDAR data for the site indicates the presence of a valley, but the county soil survey did not indicate the presence of a stream feature. The drainage area for UT3 is smaller than that for UT2 (30 acres), but this drainage area is consistent with the drainages of small headwater reference sites that have been identified and surveyed in the same region. The landowner did not recall as extensive of a variety of aquatic life observations in the UT3 channel prior to the most recent maintenance work. Therefore, the reach was determined to be an intermittent stream channel, but appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance due to the defined valley signature. Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. Drainage areas for both UT2 and UT3 were delineated using USGS topographic maps and LiDAR data. Historically, it is likely that the area functioned as a headwater stream and wetland system, with diffuse flow and no clearly defined channel throughout the reaches. A more defined channel more likely existed near the confluence with St Clair Creek towards the bottom reaches of the tributaries, due to the increased drainage area and steeper valley slopes. By restoring historic stream, wetland, and riparian buffer functions to the site, the area will provide improved habitat for biota, and improved water quality to receiving waters. 2.2.1 Historical Land Use and Development Trends Land use in the watersheds is approximately 73 percent forested (silviculture), and 27 percent agricultural. Recent land use of the site includes silviculture (managed pine plantation for timber production), agricultural production, and small parts are managed as waterfowl impoundments. Potential for land use change or future development in the area adjacent and upstream to the conservation easement is low, given the rural setting of the project location. Through channelization, the project area was drained many years ago for agricultural purposes. The channels are currently disconnected from their historic floodplain. In addition, the ditched channels have also served to drain wetlands at the site. Over time, these practices have contributed to habitat degradation and nutrient loading to the UT's and their receiving waters: St Clair Creek, and the Pamlico River. 2.2.2 Successional Trends To convert the land for agricultural use, early settlers excavated ditches to drain the wetlands for use as fields and plantation areas. Over time, the drainage ditches incised and connectivity with the floodplain became further reduced. Additionally, landowners cleared some of the riparian area within the project area to provide additional land for recreational purposes. For example, to develop waterfowl impoundments on UT2 and UT3. UT2 and UT3 flow into the project limits as a channelized headwater stream systems, receiving their drainage from parallel ditches on upstream agricultural fields and timberlands. Due to the small drainage and very low slopes, the channels are not actively incising. While active channel incision is not contributing large amounts of sediment to the receiving waters, the lowered water table, degraded buffers, and drained wetlands have negatively impacted the water quality and ecology of the St. Clair Creek watershed and the Pamlico River. UT2 and UT3 currently exist as ditched channels with wooded buffers largely absent directly adjacent to the channel banks. These areas are maintained for farm roads, access to the ditches for MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT periodic maintenance, and waterfowl impoundments. Outside of the maintained areas, wooded riparian buffers exist along UT2 and UT3. While these buffers do exist, they consist of planted Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) except for a small area along upper UT3 on the left bank that consist of mature Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and various oaks (Quercus spp.). MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.3 Vicinity Map met �A �W piligg Figure 2.1 Project Vicinity Map St. Clair Creek Site ker Beaufort County ': _ MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.4 Watershed Map 4 USGS Topographic Map - Ransomville, NC ) 9 ` Potential Conservation Easement Existing Streams Drainage Area - 30 acres Drainage Area - 89 acres t l` 1 \ 1 l t 1 S t t =1 Yi r� •� 5t � - � v Mickwl9nkn Enpinwrirp,lnc. �Y ' D 500 1,O00 Figure 2.2 Feet Watershed Map Etm of St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT ' I 4 USGS Topographic Map - Ransomville, NC ) 9 ` Potential Conservation Easement Existing Streams Drainage Area - 30 acres Drainage Area - 89 acres t l` 1 \ 1 l t 1 S t t =1 Yi r� •� 5t � - � v Mickwl9nkn Enpinwrirp,lnc. �Y ' D 500 1,O00 Figure 2.2 Feet Watershed Map Etm of St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.5 Soils Map R — Existing Streams QPotential Conservation Easement } Soil Types At - Augusta fine sandy loam Pt - Cf - Cape Fear fine sandy loam X Hy - Hyde foam Hy Me - Muckalee loam, fequently flooded Pt - Portsmouth loam " Ro - Roanoke fine sandy loam — To - Tomotley fine sandy loam yy4 •�R' r- R UT 2 P . To w--�q• N Figure 2.3 250 540 n Soils Map USL S[Cill Feet St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -6 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.6 Current Conditions Map MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -7 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.7 Historical Conditions Map — Existing Streams Potential Conservation Easement UT 2 UT 3 1993 Orthoimagery M.�. �...E.o...��..�. N Figure 2.5 0 250 500 Historical Condition Cary, NOM 1'iirSrezl519 �tem Feet Plan View E a ement St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -8 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT – FINAL DRAFT 2.8 UDAR Map [ _ Existing Streams Potential Conservation Easement Elevation °r High : 14 Low : 0 0 UT 2 UT 3 i fi r r 7 E JW fl , or MicNnl B.knr Enpiirnri,q, Yic. Figure 2.6 - kOWPykatyPaMway r� 0 250 500 LIDAR Map o Feet Pxa,Pwa�ao E 1 to setmm St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -9 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 2.9 Site Photographs !r'A View looking downstream from the proposed beginning of UT3 View looking up valley along the existing farm road on UT3 and proposed wetland restoration area along UT3 View looking upstream at the proposed beginning of UT2 View looking downstream along existing ditches at the proposed beginning of UT2 View looking downstream at the existing culverts at the proposed end of UT2 Existing planted pine timber throughout project site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2 -10 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary Information The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes portions of the following parcels. A copy of the land protection instrument is included in Appendix A. Table 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project 95015 Instrument Deed Book Acreage PIN County and Page Landowner Number Protected Numbers Stephen R. Poole, III, and Chad A. Poole 15005359 Beaufort 2013003692 1821,53-64 17.43 Baker has obtained a conservation easement from the current landowners for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project area. The easement and survey plat (Easement: Deed Book 1821, Page Numbers 53 -64; Plat: Plat Cabinet I, Slide 4 -5 through 4 -7) is held by the State of North Carolina and has been recorded at the Beaufort County Courthouse. The secured easement allows Baker to proceed with the restoration project and restricts the land use in perpetuity. 3.1.1 Potential Constraints No fatal flaws have been identified at the time of this mitigation plan. A farm path crosses UT3 where the easement is broken. The stream will be piped under the path with new, appropriately sized culverts. No exiting or proposed easements for power and telephone utilities are located within the conservation easement. Riparian buffer widths will be at least 50 feet perpendicular from the stream centerline in both directions (100 -foot minimum total buffer width) for all of the proposed stream reaches. The project area is located in a special flood hazard area and the Beaufort County Floodplain Manager has verified that no action needs to be taken to fulfill additional floodplain permitting requirements. Hydraulic trespass will not result from the implementation of the proposed project. Other regulatory factors discussed in Section 16, Appendix B were also not determined to pose potential site constraints. Construction access and staging areas have been identified and exact locations will be determined during final design. 3.2 Site Protection Instrument Figure The conservation easement for the project area is shown in Figure 3.1 and copies of the recorded survey plat are included in Section 15, Appendix A. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 3.1 Site Protection Instrument Map MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION Table 4.1 Baseline Information St. Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No. 95015 Project Information Project Name St. Clair Creek Restoration Project County Beaufort Project Area (acres) 17.5 Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.452835 N, - 76.76726215 W Watershed Summary Information Physiographic Province Outer Coastal Plain River Basin Tar - Pamlico USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit and 14 -digit 03020104 / 03020104040040 DWQ Sub -basin 03 -03 -07 Project Drainage Area (AC) 89 (UT2), 30 (UT3) Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area <1% CGIA Land Use Classification 3.02, Passively Managed Forest Stands, 2.01.01.07, Annual Row Crop Rotation; Stream Reach Summary Information Parameters Reach UT2 Reach UT3 Length of Reach (LF) 2,133 (proposed) 2,660 (existing) 1,141 (proposed) 1,075 (existing) Valley Classification (Ros en) X X Drainage Area (AC) 89 30 NCDWQ Stream Identification Score 36 20 NCDWQ Water Quality Classification C; Sw, NSW C; Sw, NSW Morphological Description (Ros en stream e)* Channelized Headwater System (Perennial) Channelized Headwater System (Intermittent) Evolution Trend ** N/A N/A Underlying Mapped Soils To, Hy, Ro To, At Drainage Class Very poorly drained, poorly drained Poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Hydric Average Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.0006 0.0009 FEMA Classification SFHA, AE SFHA, AE Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation <5% <5% Wetland Summary Information Parameters Wetland Along UT2 Size of Wetland (AC) 1.1 (proposed) 0.0 (existing) Wetland Type Riparian Mapped Soil Series To — Tomotley fine sandy loam Drainage Class Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Im airment Disconnected flood lain from ditches, lowered water table Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swam Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation <5% Parameters Wetland Along UT3 Size of Wetland (AC) 1.7 (proposed), 0.0 (existing) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Table 4.1 Baseline Information St. Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No. 95015 Wetland Type Riparian Mapped Soil Series To — Tomotley fine sandy loam Drainage Class Poorly drained Soil Hydric Status Hydric Source of Hydrology Groundwater Hydrologic Impairment Disconnected floodplain from ditches, lowered water table Native Vegetation Community Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp Percent Composition of Exotic /Invasive Vegetation <5% Regulatory Considerations Regulation Applicable Resolved Supporting Documentation Waters of the United States — Section 404 Yes Yes (Appendix B) Waters of the United States — Section 401 Yes Yes (Appendix B) Endangered Species Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Historic Preservation Act No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)/ Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) FEMA Flood lain Compliance Yes Yes (Appendix B) Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical Exclusion (Appendix B) Notes: * Due to its channelized nature, the stream would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system on this channel is questionable due to its highly altered state. * * Due to the low channel slopes and small watersheds, the headwater coastal plain systems are not actively evolving. See Figure 2.3 for key to soil series symbols. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS Table 5.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits St. Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No. 95015 Mitigation Credits Stream Riparian Wetland Non - riparian Wetland Buffer Nitrogen Nutrient Offset Phosphorus Nutrient Offset Type R R Totals 3,274 SMU 2.7 WMU Project Com onents Project Component or J P Reach ID Stationing / Location Existing Footage/ Acreage Approach Restoration/ Restoration Equivalent Restoration Footage or Acreage Mitigation Ratio Reach UT2 12 +57 —33+91 2,660 LF Headwater Restoration 2,133 SW 2,133 LF 1:1 Reach UT3 11+02 - 18 +57 and 18 +91 - 22 +78 1,075 LF Headwater Restoration 1,141 SW 1,141 LF 1:1 Wetland along UT2 See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 1.1 WNW 1.1 AC 1:1 Wetland along UT3 See plan sheets 0.0 AC Restoration 1.7 WNW 1.7 AC 1:1 *Existing Reach lengths are approximate and calculated by measuring the lengths of the main ditches that convey the UT2 and UT3 drainages Component Summation Restoration Level Stream (LF) Riparian Wetland AC Non - riparian Wetland AC Buffer S Upland AC Riverine Non - Riverine Restoration 3,274 2.8 Enhancement Enhancement 11 Creation Preservation High Quality Preservation BMP Elements Element Location Purpose/Function Notes BMP Elements: BR= Bioretention Cell; SF= Sand Filter, SW= Stormwater Wetland; WDP= Wet Detention Pond; DDP= Dry Detention Pond; FS= Filter Strip; S= Grassed Swale; LS= Level Spreader, NI= Natural Infiltration Area MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 6.0 CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the mitigation site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in Table 6.1 as follows: Table 6.1 Credit Release Schedule St. Clair Creek Restoration Project - EEP Project No. 95015 Forested Wetland Credits Monitoring Credit Release Activity Interim Total Year Release Release 0 Initial Allocation - see requirements below 30% 30% 1 First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 40% 2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 50% 3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 60% 4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 70% Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met; Provided that all performance standards are met, the IRT may allow the 5 NCEEP to discontinue hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year, vegetation monitoring must continue for an additional two years after the fifth year for a total of seven years. 10% 80% 6 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 90% 7 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met and project has received closeout approval. 10% 100% Stream Credits Monitoring Credit Release Activity Interim Total Year Release Release 0 Initial Allocation - see requirements below 30% 30% MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT I First year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met 10% 40% 2 Second year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards 50% are being met 10% (65 % *) 3 Third year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards 60% are being met 10% (75 % *) 4 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards 70% are being met 10% (85 % *) 5 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met and project has received closeout approval. 15% 100% Initial Allocation of Released Credits The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCEEP without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities: a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE covering the property c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCEEP Instrument, construction means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as -built report has been produced. As -built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits. d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA permit issuance is not required. Subsequent Credit Releases All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of 15 percent of a site's total stream credits shall be released after two bankfull events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less than two bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the NCEEP will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 7.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 7.1 Target Stream Type(s), Wetland Type(s), and Plant Communities 7.1.1 Target Stream Types The primary goal when targeting a stream type was to select a site - specific design approach that would return Coastal Plain headwater stream functions to a stable state prior to past disturbances as described in the guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain ofNorth Carolina." (USACE, DWQ 2005). Current assessment methods and data analyses were utilized for identifying lost or impaired functions at the site and to determine overall mitigation potential. Among these are reviewing existing hydrogeomorphic conditions, historical aerials and LiDAR mapping, evaluating stable reference reaches, and a comparison of results from similar past projects in Coastal Plain headwater systems. After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an approach to the site was developed, that would address restoration of stream, wetland and buffer functions within the project area. Topography and soils at the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past as headwater tributary stream system with associated wetlands, eventually flowing downstream into the larger St. Clair Creek system. Assigning an appropriate stream type for the corresponding valley that accommodates the existing and future hydrologic conditions and sediment supply was considered prior to selecting the proposed design approach. This was primarily based on the range of the reference reach data available and the desired performance of the site. Previous research performed by Baker in the Croatan National Forest examined the point at which smaller (zero to first order) Coastal Plain streams develop into defined channels (Tweedy, 2008). As described further in Section 17.1.3, and with supplemental information presented in Section 20.0, Appendix F, data collected suggest that for small tributary drainages, single thread channels are often found when drainage areas approach one square mile and slope is 0.001 foot/foot or greater. For smaller drainages and decreased slopes, multi- thread systems that function more like headwater wetlands are more common. These data, along with successful project implementation by Baker, helped to provide a basis for evaluating the valley topography of the site and determining how these stream and wetland systems may have functioned historically. 7.1.2 Target Wetland Types The restoration approach for the riparian wetland areas targets a "Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp" (Blackwater subtype), as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) and a Headwater Forest as identified by the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded ". The goal of the wetland design component of the project is to restore functions in areas where evidence of hydric soil conditions are present. The wetland restoration approach is based on a detailed soil analyses by a licensed soil scientist, hydrologic monitoring using rainfall data and groundwater level monitoring wells, as well as other assessment data collected at the site. Four main activities will be employed to restore on -site wetlands: • Minor grading to remove overburden and spoil piles from buried hydric soil layers in limited areas, this grading is anticipated to be less than 6 inches in all proposed wetland restoration areas • Re- establishing hydrology by filling existing ditches and raising of the local water table, • Planting native wetland species vegetation to establish buffer vegetation, • Connecting channels to their relic floodplains. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT As a result of raising the streambeds and reconnecting the streams to their relic floodplains, significant hydrologic lift will occur across the project area, raising the local water table and restoring wetland hydrology to drained hydric soils adjacent to the steam and wetland system. Much of this wetland uplift and restoration will occur within the 50 -foot restored buffers of the stream system, and therefore is unavailable for wetland mitigation credits. However, there are two areas of drained and impacted hydric soils adjacent to UT2 and UT3 that lie outside the proposed 50 -foot buffers of the stream restoration and are available for wetland restoration. The areas are approximately 1.1 AC (UT2) and 1.7 AC (UT3) in size, and soil conditions have been independently confirmed as hydric by a licensed soil scientist (see Section 19, Appendix E). These soils have been modified by a series of ditches that were installed in the past for agricultural and timber production. The area consists of planted pines, raised farm paths, and small sections of an existing waterfowl impoundment. A jurisdictional determination conducted in 2008 found that there is a small area of existing wetland at the downstream end of UT3 (See Section 21, Appendix G). However, the only construction activities planned will be to minimally grade an area where an old farm path had been built to restore the relic valley. Any temporary impacts to marginal or fringe wetlands associated with the restoration activities would be considered minimal and would involve minor surface excavation or roughening, re- establishment of native species wetland vegetation, and adjustments to drainage patterns as necessary to restore historic channel pattern to the system. Exposed soils will be ripped and tilled to reduce compaction from past farming practices and further soils tests will be conducted to determine appropriate liming and fertilization rates appropriate for the targeted vegetation types. Thus, stream and wetland restoration activities would improve the existing hydrology, vegetation, and soil conditions throughout the site. Additional information regarding the design approach for wetland restoration activities is located in Section 17, Appendix C. 7.1.3 Target Plant Communities Native species riparian vegetation will be established in both the restored headwater stream valley, restored buffer and wetland complexes throughout the site. Schafale and Weakley's (1990) guidance on vegetation communities as well as the USACE Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997) were referenced during the development of riparian and wetland planting lists for the site. In general, bare root vegetation will be planted at a target density of 680 stems per acre. Existing invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), will be removed to allow native plants to become established within the conservation easement. Planted pines will be removed within the conservation easement, however native tree species will be preserved whenever possible and harvested woody material will be utilized to provide cover and /or nesting habitat. Wetland hardwood species will be planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored headwater stream, riparian wetland, and riparian buffer areas. Species will include: Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica), Swamp Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Laurel Oak (Quercus laurifolia), Overcup oak (Quercus lyrata), Willow Oak (Quercus phellos), Bald Cypress (Taxodium distichum), and American Elm (Ulmus americana). Understory species will include: Sweet Pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), Titi (Cyrilla racemiflora), Sweetbay Magnolia (Magnolia virginiana), Swamp Bay (Persea palustris), Swamp Doghobble (Leucothoe racemosa), Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and Virginia Sweetspire (Itea virginica). 7.2 Design Parameters Selection of design criteria is based on a combination of approaches, including review of reference reach data, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from past projects, and best professional judgment. Evaluating data from reference reach surveys and monitoring results from multiple Baker MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Coastal Plain headwater stream and wetland projects provided pertinent background information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and overall site potential. The design parameters for the site (shown in Section 17, Appendix C) also considered current guidelines from the USACE and NCDWQ guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain ofNorth Carolina." ( USACE, DWQ 2005). The restoration activities are justified for the following reasons: 1. Site streams have been channelized during the conversion of the surrounding area for agricultural use. Re- establishing the historic stream, valley, and wetland conditions will allow stream flow to spread onto the historic floodplain, dissipating flow energies and forming multi- thread flow patterns, improve water quality, and improve wetland hydrology; 2. Past agricultural and silvicultural activities, such as timber production, have resulted in lowered water tables and monoculture vegetation within the historic riparian zone; 3. Enhancement or preservation measures would not achieve the highest possible level of functional lift for the degraded stream and wetland system. Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for reaches UT2 and UT3. The approaches were based on the potential for restoration as determined during the site assessment and the specific design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross - section dimensions, and profile could be described for developing construction documents. The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences. Table 7.1 Project Design Stream Types St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Proposed Stream Stream Approach /Rationale Type Coastal Plain Headwater Stream: Restoration will consist of grading the historic valley topography, returning the flow to this valley, and filling the channelized portions of stream and ditches. UT2 to St. The system will be allowed to form a multi- thread channel on its Clair DA own. This approach will allow for restoration of historic flow Creek patterns. Riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide (100 -foot total minimum width) will be established or protected along both sides of the centerline of the restored valley and all buffer areas will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Coastal Plain Headwater Stream: Restoration will consist of grading the historic valley topography, returning the flow to this valley, and filling the channelized portions of stream and ditches. UT3 to St. The system will be allowed to form a multi- thread channel on its Clair DA own. This approach will allow for restoration of historic flow Creek patterns. Riparian buffers at least 50 feet wide (100 -foot total minimum width) will be established or protected along both sides of the centerline of the restored valley and all buffer areas will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. Due to the small drainage and very low slopes, the channels are not actively incising. While active channel incision is not contributing large amounts of sediment to the receiving waters, the lowered water MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT table, degraded buffers, and drained wetlands have negatively impacted the water quality and ecology of the St. Clair Creek watershed and the Pamlico River. Excess nutrients are currently entering the system from upstream farm fields where buffers are either minimal or non - existent. Ecological uplift will come from the restoration of diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitats that are appropriate for the ecoregion and landscape setting. By raising the stream bed and reconnecting the relic floodplains, the maximum degree of potential uplift will be provided, restoring stream, buffer, and wetland functions. Uplift will also be provided to the system by restoring and extending wildlife corridors that connect with existing wetlands and wooded areas near the downstream extents of the reaches. The water quality of receiving waters will be improved by reduced nutrient inputs. Approximately 17.5 acres of riparian buffer will be protected by a perpetual conservation easement. 7.3 Data Analyses Both UT2 and UT3 have been straightened /channelized and dredged in the past and this manipulation has created a single - thread channel that is overly deep for the given drainage area which, along with adjacent parallel ditching, has lowered the water table. Both UT2 and UT3 most likely existed prior to conversion as a multi - thread channel (DA stream type). This is evidenced by the presence of small remnant headwater valleys and soil features in the areas and described further in Section 17, Appendix C. Additionally, detailed topographic surveys were conducted to determine the elevations of the existing ditches and to validate the headwater valley signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery. The valley slopes are generally uniform and very flat along both UT2 and UT3. Under Coastal Plain headwater reference conditions where channel formation is poor, unregulated flows are often conveyed through multiple small channels across a relatively well - defined floodplain. These stream and wetland systems flood regularly and their associated floodplains are typically characterized as depositional, which provide sediment storage during higher flow events. Microtopography that develops across these broad bottomlands is quite variable, because of tree roots, tip mounds, and debris jams. Debris appears to be a critical component in maintaining the characteristics of diffuse flow, as stream energy is not sufficient to provide excess scour and movement of large debris. Shear stress and stream power relationships developed for these reference sites are shown in Appendix C. Since both UT2 and UT3 most likely previously existed as multi- thread headwater stream and wetland systems and have now been channelized /ditched, the use of Rosgen's stream classification system ( Rosgen, 1996) is questionable but UT2 and UT3 would most closely classify as a Rosgen G stream type. Additionally, feature formation throughout the channelized reaches are poor with minimal habitat diversity or woody debris. The riparian buffer vegetation is absent or consist mostly of planted pines. The stream displays no measurable meander geometry due to its channelized condition. These conditions generally lead to lateral instability over time; however, small watersheds and very low stream gradients have served to prevent any significant bed or bank erosion. Automated groundwater well data collected from April 2012 through March 2013 indicate that the site currently exhibits hydrologic conditions drier than jurisdictional wetland conditions. The data were collected during both dormant and growing season, and jurisdictional wetland hydrology was not observed across the project site. The ditches and channelized streams on the site transport surface and shallow, subsurface drainage from the farms fields, lowering the water table and keeping soil conditions favorable for agricultural production. Examination of the available hydrology and hydric soil data indicate that there is good potential for the restoration of a productive wetland and stream ecosystem. The proposed design approach will restore hydrologic conditions prior to channelization by raising the local water table, base flow levels and introducing a natural flooding regime. The existing conditions data indicates that proposed mitigation activities will result in re- establishment of functional stream, floodplain MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT and wetland ecosystem. The restoration efforts, including site protection from a conservation easement, will promote the greatest ecological benefit, a rapid recovery period, and a justifiable and reduced environmental impact. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 8.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN The site will be monitored on a regular basis, to include physical inspection of the site at least once a year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance will be most likely in the first two years following site construction and may include the following components as described in Table 8.1: Table 8.1 Routine Maintenance Components St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Feature Maintenance through project close -out Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include stabilizing any significant rilling or erosional areas and supplemental installations of target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance to prevent bank failures and head - cutting until vegetation becomes established. Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas of concentrated stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour. Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic /invasive plant species will controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Site Boundary Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis. Culverted Farm Road The road crossing within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded Crossings Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 9.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS Baker has been involved in obtaining recent approvals from the regulatory agencies for several Coastal Plain stream and wetland mitigation plans. The success criteria for the project site will follow the mitigation plans developed for these projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE 2003 and NCDWQ 2003) and EEP's recent supplemental guidance document Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards for Stream and /or Wetland Mitigation dated November 7, 2011. Additionally, the USACE and NCDWQ Guidance Document Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina will be referenced for monitoring purposes. All monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years unless the site demonstrates complete success by Year 5 and no concerns have been identified. An early closure provision may be requested by the provider for some or all of the monitoring components. Early closure may only be obtained through written approval from the USACE in consultation with the NCIRT. For reaches UT2 and UT3, which involve the restoration of the historic flow pattern as a multi- thread headwater stream system to be constructed as a broad valley with shallow flow paths, monitoring will focus primarily on visual assessments and flow documentation. It shall be consistent with the requirements described in the Federal Rule for compensatory mitigation sites in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.5 paragraphs (a) and (b). Specific success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below. 9.1 Stream Monitoring — Reach UT2 & UT3 Geomorphic monitoring of reaches UT2 and UT3 will conducted once a year for seven years following the completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. Since this approach involves the restoration of historic flow patterns and flooding functions in a multi- thread headwater stream system, monitoring efforts will focus on visual observations to document stability and the use of water level monitoring gauges to document saturation and flooding functions. The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter. 9.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions The occurrence of bankfull events and flooding functions within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of automated water level gauges and photographs. Groundwater levels within the restored headwater valley should approximate the wetland hydroperiods of similar reference sites. At least four automated gauges on UT2 and two on UT3 will be installed approximately 500 feet apart within the restored systems to document flow duration. The automated loggers will be programmed to collect data at a minimum of every 6 hours to capture flow frequency and duration. Installation of monitoring stations will follow the standard methods found in Stream Mitigation Guidelines (USACE and NCDWQ 2006). A surface water flow event will be considered perennial when the flow duration occurs for a minimum of 30 days. Two surface water flow events must be documented within a five -year monitoring period; otherwise, monitoring will continue for seven years or until two flow events have been documented in separate years. The automated gauges should document the occurrence of extended periods of shallow surface ponding, indicative of flow. Additional monitoring or alternative analyses may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic conditions. 9.1.2 Photo Reference Stations Visual monitoring of both stream reaches will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to visually- document system performance. Reference stations will be photographed annually for a minimum of seven years following construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each monitoring period. The reaches will be photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the restoration site and moving upstream to the end of the site. Photographs will be taken looking upstream at delineated locations throughout the restored stream valley. Points will be close enough together to provide an overall view of the reach lengths and valley crenulations. The angle of the shot will depend on what angle provides the best view and will be noted and continued in future shots. Lateral photographs will also be used to evaluate channel development, erosion, success of riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Photo reference stations will be marked and described for future reference to document the development of appropriate vegetation. A series of photos over time should demonstrate successional maturation of riparian vegetation. When modifications to photo position must be made due to obstructions or other reasons, the position will be noted along with any landmarks and the same position will used in the future. Additional photographs and /or video footage may be taken to document any observed evidence of flooding patterns such as debris /leaf litter, wrack lines, water marks, diffuse flow features, sediment sorting /deposits, shelving, etc. 9.1.3 Bed Material Analyses Since the streams through the project site are dominated by silt or sand -size particles, pebble count procedures would not show a significant change in bed material size or distribution over the monitoring period; therefore, bed material analyses are not recommended for this project. 9.2 Wetland Monitoring 9.2.1 Groundwater Data Collection Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed in the wetland mitigation areas to document hydrologic conditions of the restored wetland area. Up to four groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to evaluate hydrology during each growing season for seven years of hydrologic monitoring, or until success criteria have been met, whichever occurs later. To meet the hydrologic success criteria, the monitoring gauge data must show that for each normal year within the monitoring period, the site has been inundated or saturated for a certain hydroperiod. The targeted hydroperiod will be based on the range of wetness conditions for the type of wetland system to be restored and comparable hydrology of a nearby reference wetland site. 9.2.2 Hydrology In order to determine if the hydrologic success criteria are achieved, automated groundwater - monitoring stations will be installed across the restored site and monitored year- round. Groundwater monitoring stations will follow the USACE standard methods found in the WRP Technical Notes ERDC TN- WRAP- 00 -02, (July 2000). In the event that there are years of normal precipitation during the monitoring period, and the data for those years do not show that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod during the normal precipitation year, the review agencies may require remedial action. Baker will provide any required remedial action and continue to monitor hydrology on the site until it displays that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. The objective is for the monitoring data to show the site exhibits an increased frequency of flooding. Groundwater levels will be compared to pre- restoration conditions and reference conditions. The MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT success criteria for wetland hydrology will be met when the site is saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface for 12% of the growing season (NCEEP, 2009b). In order to determine if the rainfall is normal for the given year, a rainfall gage will be installed on the site to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data for the Pamlico Aquaculture Field Lab station, obtained from the CRONOS Database located on the State Climate Office of North Carolina's website. The Pamlico Aquaculture Field Lab station is approximately 6.5 miles from the project site. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during the first seven years of monitoring, Baker will continue to monitor hydrology on the site until it documents that the site has been inundated or saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. If the rainfall data for any given year during the monitoring period are abnormal, it is possible that the desired hydrology for the site may not meet specific success criteria. However, reference wetland data will be assessed to determine if there is a positive correlation between the underperformance of the project site and the natural hydrology of the reference site(s). 9.2.3 Photo Reference Stations Visual monitoring of all wetland areas will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between each site visit. Photographs will be used to visually document system performance and identify areas of low stem density, invasive species vegetation, beaver activity, or other areas of concern. Reference stations will be photographed twice a year for a minimum of seven years following construction. Photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five to six feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that the same locations (and view directions) on the site are documented in each monitoring period. 9.3 Vegetation Monitoring Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation- monitoring quadrants will be installed and monitored across the restoration site in accordance with the CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1 (2007). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be a minimum of 2 percent of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of nine plots established randomly within the planted riparian buffer areas per Monitoring Levels 1 and 2. The size of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters for woody tree species. Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include species diameter, height, density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual seedlings will be marked such that they can be found in succeeding monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings. At the end of the first full growing season (baseline /year 0) or after 180 days between March 1St and November 30'h, species composition, stem density, and survival will be evaluated. For each subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success criteria are achieved. The restored site will be evaluated between March and November. The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. At Year five, density must be no less than 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre. The final vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210, 7 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of the seven -year monitoring period, which must average 10 feet in height. However, if the performance standard is met by Year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260, 5- MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT year old stems /acre, vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and Interagency review Team (IRT). While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health. For this reason the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of additional plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success. Baker will provide any required remedial action on a case -by -case basis, such as replanting more wet /drought tolerant species, beaver management /dam removal, or removing undesirable /invasive species vegetation, and continue to monitor vegetation performance until the corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement. Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native grasses and forbs, will be seeded /planted throughout the site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project site must comply with the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control requirements. 9.4 Stormwater Management Monitoring No stormwater BMPs are proposed at the site therefore no such monitoring will be included. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 10.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS Annual monitoring reports containing the information defined within Table 10.1 below will be submitted to EEP by December 31St of the each year during which the monitoring was conducted. The monitoring report shall provide a project data chronology for EEP to document the project status and trends. Project success criteria must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet criteria are successfully met. Table 10.1 Monitoring Requirements St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Required Parameter Quantity Frequency Notes As per April 2003 USACE A Crest Gauge and/or Pressure Transducers will X Surface Water Wilmington District Annually e installed on site, the device will be inspected Hydrology Stream Mitigation on on a quarterly /semi - annual basis to document the Guidelines occurrence of bankfull events on the project. Groundwater monitoring gauges with data Groundwater Will be determined in recording devices will be installed on site as X consultation with EEP as Annually necessary to characterize the degree of attainment Hydrology y gy applicable of the reference hydrology. The data will be downloaded on a monthly basis during the growing season. X Vegetation EEP -CVS Guidance Annually Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols. Exotic and Twice Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will X Nuisance Annually be visually assessed and mapped a minimum of 5 Vegetation months apart. X Project As- Needed Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage, Boundary boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped. Photo stations will be established to capture the Digital state of the channel and for vegetation plots. X Annually Stream photos will be preferably taken when the Photos vegetation is minimal and within the same 2- month window between monitoring years. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 11.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon approval for close -out by the IRT the site will be transferred to the EEP. This party shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party. The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 11 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 12.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN Upon completion of site construction, EEP will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, EEP will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in -house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized EEP will: 1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions. 2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary and /or required by the USACE. 3. Obtain other permits as necessary. 4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan. 5. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 13.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided the USACE - Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 13 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 14.0 OTHER INFORMATION 14.1 Definitions This document is consistent with the requirements of the federal rule for compensatory mitigation sites as described in the Federal Register Title 33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2) through (c)(14). Specifically the document addresses the following requirements of the federal rule: (2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and /or preservation), and the manner in which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest. (3) Site selection. A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. This should include consideration of watershed needs, onsite alternatives where applicable, and the practicability of accomplishing ecologically self - sustaining aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and /or preservation at the compensatory mitigation site. (See § 332.3(d).) (4) Site protection instrument. A description of the legal arrangements and instrument, including site ownership, that will be used to ensure the long -term protection of the compensatory mitigation site (see § 332.7(a)). (5) Baseline information. A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed compensatory mitigation site and, in the case of an application for a DA permit, the impact site. This may include descriptions of historic and existing plant communities, historic and existing hydrology, soil conditions, a map showing the locations of the impact and mitigation site(s) or the geographic coordinates for those site(s), and other site characteristics appropriate to the type of resource proposed as compensation. The baseline information should also include a delineation of waters of the United States on the proposed compensatory mitigation site. A prospective permittee planning to secure credits from an approved mitigation bank or in -lieu fee program only needs to provide baseline information about the impact site, not the mitigation bank or in -lieu fee site. (6) Determination of credits. A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination. (See § 332.3(f).) (7) Mitigation work-plan. Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the compensatory mitigation project, including, but not limited to, the geographic boundaries of the project; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan, including elevations and slopes of the substrate; soil management; and erosion control measures. For stream compensatory mitigation projects, the mitigation work plan may also include other relevant information, such as plan form geometry, channel form (e.g. typical channel cross - sections), watershed size, design discharge, and riparian area plantings. (8) Maintenance plan. A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. (9) Performance standards. Ecologically -based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. (See § 332.5.) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT (10) Monitoring requirements. A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results to the district engineer must be included. (See § 332.6.) (11) Long -term management plan. A description of how the compensatory mitigation project will be managed after performance standards have been achieved to ensure the long -term sustainability of the resource, including long -term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long -term management. (See § 332.7(d).) (12) Adaptive management plan. A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the compensatory mitigation project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising compensatory mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both foreseeable and unforeseen circumstances that adversely affect compensatory mitigation success. (See § 332.7(c).) (13) Financial assurances. A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards (see § 332.3(n)). 2) Objectives. A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation (i.e., restoration, establishment, enhancement, and /or preservation), and the manner in which the resource functions of the compensatory mitigation project will address the needs of the watershed, ecoregion, physiographic province, or other geographic area of interest. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 14.2 References Bratton, S. P. 1976. Resource Division in an Understory Herb Community: Responses to Temporal and Microtopographic Gradients. The American Naturalist 110 (974):679 -693. Dunne, T. and Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman Co. San Francisco CA. Faber- Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti, T., Comer, P. (2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration: Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA. Hardin, J.W. 1977. Vascular plants. In: Cooper, J.E., S. S. Robinson, and J.B. Funderburg (eds.). Endangered and Threatened Plants and Animals of North Carolina. North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh. Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E. Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water Resources Association. June 30 -July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT. Henson, T.H. 1990. Bald eagle. In: Lee, D.S. and J.F. Parnell (eds.). Endangered, Threatened and Rare Fauna of North Carolina, Part III. A Re- evaluation of the Birds. Occasional Papers of the North Carolina Biological Survey. North Carolina Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh. Johnson, P.A. and Heil, T.M. 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 32(6):1283 -1291. Kilpatrick, F.A. and Barnes, H.H. 1964. Channel Geometry of Piedmont Streams as Related to Frequency of Floods. Professional Paper 422 -E. US Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Knighton, D. 1984. Fluvial Forms and Processes. London, UK. Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Paper No. 2776: 1234 -1279. Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. CVS -NCEEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.1, 2007. Leopold, L. B. and T. Maddock Jr., 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some Physiographic Implications. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252: 57. Leopold, Luna B., M. Gordon Wolman, and John P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco, CA. (151). MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Leopold, L.B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass. Merigliano, M.F. 1997. Hydraulic Geometry and Stream Channel Behavior: An Uncertain Link. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 33(6): 1327 -1336. Nixon, M. 1959. A Study of Bankfull Discharges of Rivers in England and Wales. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, Vol 12: 157 -175. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2013. Drought Monitor History, Beaufort County, NC. NC Division of Water Resources http: / /www.ncwater.or _g/Drought_Monitoring /dmhiggiy/ North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2012. NC Water Quality Classifications, Tar - Pamlico River Basin. NC Division of Water Quality hLtp://portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/Ts/csu/classifications North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 2010. Tar - Pamlico River Basin Restoration Priorities. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http: / /www.nceep. net /services /regplans/ FINAL %20RBRP %2OTar - Pamlico %2020110523.pdf . North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program.2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http: / /www.ncfloodmaps.com. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Element Occurrence Database (Listing of State and Federally Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina). North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina, USA. 2011. [Online WWW]. Available URL: http: //149.168.1.196/nhp . Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199. Rosgen, D.L., 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, CO. Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina, third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR. Raleigh, NC. Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape ofAlluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 352 -B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC. Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes andLandforms 14(1):11 -26. Stephens, E. P., 1956. The Uprooting of Trees: a Forest Process. Soil Science Society of America Proceedings 20:113 -116. Sweet, W.V. and J.W. Geratz. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 39(4):861- 871. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Tweedy, K. L. 2008. A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems. Conference Proceedings. Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice. United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN- rs -4.1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District. United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. 1995. Beaufort County Soil Survey, [Online WWW]. Available URL: ( http : / /soildatafnart.nres.usda.gov/ manuscripts /NCO 13 /0/beaufort.pdf). 2002. Climate Information- Wetlands Retrieval for North Carolina. Natural Resources Conservation Service. Beaufort County, Aurora 6 N WETS Station:NC0375. [Online WWW]. Available URL: (http: / /www.wcc.nres.usda. _gov /ftpref /support/ climate /wetlands /nc /3 7013 .txt). United States Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal Species of Concern, and Candidate Species, Beaufort County, North Carolina (County Listing). Beaufort County. 2012. [Online WWW]. Available URL: hLtp://www.fivs.gov/raleigh/species/cpiylist/beaufort.html. _gh /species /cpiylist/b /species /cpiylist/beaufort.html. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Land Cover Data. 2002. [Online WWW]. Available URL: hLtp:Hseafnless.usgs.gov /. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2005. Technical standard for water -table monitoring of potential wetland sites. ERDC TN- WRAP -05 -2, Vicksburg, MS. hitp:Hel.erdc.usace.anny.mil/wW/Tdf/tnwrgp05-2.pd f Williams, G. P. 1978. Bank -Full Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research. Vol 14. No. 6: 1141- 1154. Wolman, M.G. 1957. River Floodplains: Some Observations on their Formation. USGS Professional Paper 282 -C. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, DC. Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework-for assessing and reporting on ecological condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT This page intentionally left blank. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 14 -6 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 15.0 APPENDIX A - SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 15 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT ER&UMPIT CO lay 14M IT. ROUTING FO Land Recor Official Prepared by and return to: Robert H. Merritt, Jr. Bailey & Dixon, LLP R O. Box 1351 Raleigh, NC 27602 Excise Tax $ � 1}6. 00 �K1821PC053 RE -CORDS 2., — i3 Dame STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT COUNTY SPO# 007 -K EEP SITE ID #: 95015 FOR REGISTRRTION REGISTER OF DEEDS Jennifer Leggett Whitehurst Beaufort County, NC June 27, 2013 09:56:00 AM Book 1821 Page 53 -64 FEE: $26.00 NC REVENUE STAMP; $640.00 INSTRUMENT # 2013003692 CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROVIDED PURSUANT TO FULL DELIVERY MITIGATION CONTRACT CONTRACT 003986 IPh THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this ;21-/ day of 2013, by CHAD ASHLEY POOLE (unmarried) and STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE, III and wife, JENNIE C. POOLE, (hereinafter collectively "Grantor "), to the State of North Carolina, ("Grantee"), -whose mailing address is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall. include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required by context. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et seq., the State of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; and WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated, arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, to provide stream, wetland and /or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources purchase and Services Contract Number 003986. gFK1821?G059 WHEREAS, the State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (the "MOA ") duly executed by all parties in Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem functions; and WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina, on the 8th day of February 2000; and WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the Governor and the Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved acceptance of this instrument; and WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple a certain parcel of real property situated, lying and being in Bath Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, which parcel is identified by PIN: 15- 005359 (GPIN: 6672 -78 -3003) containing approximately 125.57 acres having been conveyed to Grantor by deed recorded in Deed Book 1235, Page 0484, Beaufort County Registry, North Carolina and which parcel is described in said recorded deed as Tract One and Tract Two, but is treated in the Beaufort County tax records as one parcel under the PIN: 15- 005359 (the "Property "); and WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement (as hereinafter defined) over portions of the Property referred to above, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included portions of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement for the protection and benefit of the waters and the other portions of the Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project, Beaufort County, North Carolina; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and restrictions hereinafter set forth and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a Conservation Easement along with a general Right of Access, as follows: The Easement Area consists of the following: All of the land identified as follows: 2 eX'l821PG055 Conservation Easements identified as CE -1, CE -2, and CE -3, as shown on a Plat entitled "Saint Clair Creels Restoration Project for State of North Carolina — Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole, Bath Township — Beaufort County — North Carolina" dated June 17, 2013, prepared by Gaskins Land Surveying, P.A. and recorded at Plat or Map Book , 51-4F gage q —T+hRV i , Beaufort County Registry. TOGETHER WITH easements and rights for access, ingress, egress and regress as described on the above - referenced recorded plat and this Conservation Easement Deed. The Conservation Easements described above are hereinafter referred to as the "Easement Area" or the "Conservation Easement" and are further set forth in a metes and bounds description attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference. The purposes of the Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, create and preserve wetland and /or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth: I. DURATION OF EASEMENT Pursuant to law, including the above referenced statutes, this Conservation Easement and Right of Access shall be perpetual and it shall run with and be a continuing restriction upon the use of the Property, and it shall be enforceable by the Grantee against the Grantor and against Grantor's heirs, successors and assigns, personal representatives, lessees, agents and licensees. II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor are hereby and have been acquired by the Grantee. Any rights not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor, including the rights to all mitigation credits, including, but not limited to, stream, wetland, and riparian buffer mitigation units, derived from each site within the area of the Conservation Easement, are conveyed to and belong to the Grantee. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following specific uses are R_K1821,,Gos prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated: A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement Area for the purposes thereof. B. Motorized Vehicle Use. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is prohibited. C. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of the Conservation Easement shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site. D. Vegetation Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased or damaged trees, and vegetation that destabilizes or renders unsafe the Easement Area to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or destruction of any trees and vegetation in the Basement Area is prohibited. E. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All industrial, residential and commercial uses are prohibited in the Easement Area. F. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses are prohibited within the Easement Area, including any use for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland. G. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area. H. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or paving in the Easement Area. I. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Easement Area, signs giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement Area. J. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is prohibited. K. Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling, excavation, dredging, mining, drilling, removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, minerals, or other materials in the Easement Area. 4 �X1821Pu05.7 L. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water in the Easement Area. No altering or tampering. with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns is allowed. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticides or biocides in the Easement Area is prohibited. In the event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources, water from within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed for the survival of livestock and agricultural production on the Property. M. Subdivision and Conve, ante. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision, partitioning or dividing of the underlying Property owned by the Grantor in fee simple (`fee ") that is subject to this Easement is allowed. Unless agreed to by the Grantee in 'writing, any future conveyance of the underlying fee and the rights conveyed herein shall be as a single block of property. Any future transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of unlimited and repeated ingress and egress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth herein. N. Development Rights. All development rights are permanently removed from the Easement Area and are non - transferrable: O. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction of non- native plants, trees and /or animal species by Grantor is prohibited. The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and the Grantor obtains advance written approval from the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, whose mailing address is currently 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652, III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES A. Right of Access, Construction and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, receive the perpetual Right of Access to the Easement Area over the Property, as further described below, at reasonable times to undertake any activities to restore, construct, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the stream, wetland and other riparian resources in the Easement Area in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term management plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights. The permanent Right of Access set forth herein shall be over that certain five foot (5') access easement shown on Plat Book Aft / , Page L 9 ' leading from the western boundary of the Property to and between each of Conservation Easements CE -1, CE -2 and CE -3 5 aK1821P�058 as shown on said`Plat. In addition to the five foot (T) permanent Right of Access set forth above, Grantor hereby grants to Grantee, its agents and invitees, access for ingress, egress and regress over that certain thirty foot (30') right -of -way described in Book 800, Page 361, Beaufort County Registry (except the portion of said right -of -way running from point "a" to point "b ") and as necessary, over the Property for the purpose of accessing said conservation easements CE -1, CE- 2 and CE -3, or either of them, in the event of extraordinary circumstances requiring such access, provided the landowner is given ten (10) days' notice of such need by Grantee. B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to grade, fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation of natural and manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and subterraneous water flow. C. S_ ps. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to place signs and witness posts on the Property to include any or all of the following: describe the project, prohibited activities within the Conservation Easement, or identify the project boundaries and the holder of the Conservation Easement. D. Fences, The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors or assigns, shall be permitted to place fencing on the Property to restrict livestock access. Although the Grantee is not responsible for fence maintenance, the Grantee reserves the right to repair the fence, at its sole discretion. IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features in the Easement Area that may have been damaged by such unauthorized activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify the Grantor in writing of such breach, and the Grantor shall have ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the damage caused by such breach. If the breach and damage remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by bringing appropriate legal proceedings including an action to recover damages, as well as injunctive and other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority, consistent with its statutory.authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any appropriate person or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate relief, if the breach is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation Easement, and the Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that the damage would a 1821°G05 9 be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this Conservation Easement. B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor is complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation Easement. C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury to or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties or resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life or damage to the Property resulting from such causes. D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs incurred by Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated by Grantor's acts or omissions in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement, shall be borne by Grantor. E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Conservation Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee and any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by Grantee. V. MISCELLANEOUS A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be invalid, the remainder of the provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby. B. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the Property, except as expressly provided herein. Upkeep of any constructed bridges, fences, or other amenities on the Property are the sole responsibility of the Grantor. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights. C. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested 7 WK1821?G060 to the parties at their addresses shown above or to such other address(es) as such party establishes in writing upon notification to the other. D. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said transfer is made. Grantor further agrees that any subsequent lease, deed, or other legal instrument by which any interest in the Property is conveyed shall be subject to the Conservation Easement herein created. E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof. F. This Conservation Easement and Right of Access may be amended, but only in a writing signed by all parties hereto, or their successors and/or assigns, and provided such amendment does not affect the qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement. The owner of the Property shall notify the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in writing sixty (60) days prior to the initiation of any transfer of all or any part of the Property. Such notification shall be addressed to: Justin McCorkle, General Counsel, US Army Corps of Engineers, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, NC 28403. G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable; provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that the terns of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document. VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and are not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the Grantor's invitees and licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of quiet enjoyment of the Easement Area. TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes. AND Grantor covenants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and has the right to convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the same are free from a 1821P "061 encumbrances except the easements, leases, restrictions and rights -of -way reserved or granted herein or otherwise of record and described below and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the claims of all persons whomsoever. The easements, leases, restrictions and rights -of -way reserved herein or of record constituting exceptions to title are as follows: 1. Reservation of rights as set forth in Article II, above. IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunder set its hand and seal, the day and year first above written. Q, -I J per4 f J (SEAL) Step en Richard Poole, III h .G SEAL J nn e C.. Poole (SEAL) Chad Ashley Po le NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF Cqv`�ez f do certify that Stephen Richard Poole, III and wife, Jennie C. Poole, personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging that they voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes therein expressed. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principals' identity in the form of a�2i� n 5 1-1G�S r- Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this 2 /day of Jo J , 2013. N �-(a7iy Public / /7�TJ✓y/ L t= Printed or typed notary name My Commission Expires: ?-)1'711-6 I rhornas E. Notary Public Beaufort County North Carolina My Coj}n-jissfon.� ire's 9K1821POn 062 NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF do certify that Chad Ashley Poole, personally appeared before me this day, each acknowledging that they voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purposes therein expressed. I have received satisfactory evidence of the principals' identity in the form of Witness m hand and official stamp or seal this y p t/ day of 20 3. ary Public Printed or typed notary name My Commission Expires: --1 / /L 00351628 10 n:1 r r: deg? 44 3 �l.2eSi1�4"Z9O Notary a coun,�y 4 tiort6� Carolina,- G` ' "; 45tCTri E.Kpires��3 Exhibit 1 Legal Description Permanent Conservation Easements Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project Beaufort County, NC 1. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -1) A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of Stephen Richard Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded in Plat Book -7-7 , -age z1- 5-4Akd 7 , of the Beaufort County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole (PIN: 15005359), more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an existing 1" iron pipe with NC Grid coordinates of N 628175.8383, E 2674618.45 10, and identified as Control Point # 2 on the above referenced plat and running S 26 °12'38" E 68.43', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances: N00° 12'24 "W 113.7l'; thence N73 022'26 "E 1177.0l'; thence S66 °31'07 "E 150.49'; thence S39 °39'31 "E 605.53'; thence S6103 6'54"E 422.03' ; thence S28 023'35 "E 36.59; thence S80 057'22 "W 335.24'; thence N61013'14 "W 453.80; thence N36 034'12 "W 205.42'; thence N24 043'19 "W 207.22'; thence S71 044'06 "W 608.27; thence S87 049'56 "W 525.44', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement containing 11.55 acres, more or less. 2. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -2) A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clair Creek Restoration Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of Stephen Richard Poole, III nd Chad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded in Plat Book Ke ` VA6 7 of the Beaufort County Registry, 1821°U06`f and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole (PIN: 15005359), more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of N 627778.5460, 2676800.1700, and identified as Control Point # 3 on the above referenced plat and running N 14° 06'35" W 299.24', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances: N13 056'12 "W 718.86'; thence N84 005'38 "E 233.03'; thence S30 053'00 "E 200.07; thence S10 021'12 "E 331.20'; thence S27 039'10 "W 326.86'; thence N46 037'24 "W 95.17', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement containing 4.19 acres, more or less. 3. Permanent Conservation Easement (Ref: PIN: 15005359) (CE -3) A permanent conservation easement over a portion of land in Bath Township, Beaufort County, North Carolina, as shown on a map entitled "Saint Clain Creek Restoration Project for State of North Carolina - Ecosystem Enhancement Program on the property of Stephen Richard Poole, Ilhad Ashley Poole, dated June 17, 2013, and recorded in Plat Book —S4hld i of the Beaufort County Registry, and being a portion of the parcel owned by Richard Stephen Poole, III and Chad Ashley Poole (PIN: 15005359), more particularly described as follows: Commencing at an iron bar and cap with NC Grid coordinates of N 627778.5460, 2676800.1700, and identified as Control Point 9 3 on the above referenced plat and running N 17° 31' 30" E 403.84', to a point, which is the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING; thence continuing the following courses and distances: N16 016'47 "E 80.54'; thence N30 054'08 "E 115.11' ; thence S52 013'28 "E 170.24'; thence S34 025'19 "E 267.28'; thence S50 054'54 "W 155.60'; thence N44 058'41 "W 349.03', to the POINT AND PLACE OF BEGINNING, said permanent conservation easement containing 1.69 acres, more or less. 2tA� aWWKATIE TAXaft"n-w3woftnAum NOWWPOW M AND WIFLANK C M09L HUM CUNWIMT WEAN IM QWNMOFTNE POOPUMES *AD 0c3cwwwftwftV*q1c" WOK COIROWMTOUSIX111111CC CIA OF THE NEALIPOltr MSM MMW. AMIMME HENIEWADOMM RAN OF SLIODWISION AND MW AND COMM 7K LASOMWS MMOW"M FUE CONSEW FJX"1Kl"MW=MTHXTTKLAN0A5SHOWN MMMISWM TIE SAMMMMNMAAMMAWASOKMMOFSEAURMCDtWff NOMICANOUPW CNOASK0 tnaE D= nwimm"Oviepocia'm em N J(�Aj i c kliL.21 Is i,,i, 3 FOOU ow MUMMY MMAMwMM1 20J ; j/va7 aMaw -7 ff ornas A7 Notary Public -3eauforl Count} North Carolina ,ission Expires--:;,/'VA L STATE OF NORM CANOLMA CDLWtV OF BEAUFORT �2-6: XY/0� ANWUW PUNK KMVMCWJWMM MMEFllecaWVA M AM MUNORMALIM NWANVPUNM — Arohie. "40tary Publjc ufo't rth �13ufort County ii-irth Carolir, WOOMEEEIEEDM �qww"n TAX GM11IM-311-SM ro: L540NO WE SID IL POOLE. A AND MR WOMM T. POOIL 001691 CERM TW WE AN THE OWNLMS OF Tiff PIKWUff SHOWN AND DEKXMD Ni KW MOM WILIK COWAYM TO IS BY DEED WMINOW W DEED MOOS MTW 91b%U ff CUIMIM I RV ANDTHWIF"t MWW ADM IM KAN OF 3L1MVY1190110 AND GRAW AND COWM TIM LAMWM HMM WITH PKE P00111111110iffACCM tASUMH MOM THE NOM MM BOUNDAWOF PMM BFYL KwHK I HUM OW*YTMT TM LAN DAS %am twow swrim T%E snowsm U—SULUMAYMMOOKOFKAUFawraxon mmucwtaii, f R FOOLE.ILL a z 29- T. POOLE DAU .*MAW( piiiiaic PON TWO111111111111FAM SWINGRINIA11111i PONWADY CEMFYTW MWW L FOOL; ALAM011MLIUMIAT. POW W JN=WWMAWO"KWSTAW=nKjM fty OF A_ =3 7homes E. ArChie N�otary Public aeauton County North =Garob My Co- -,"ission Expire's*,-w Gaskins Land Surveying P.A. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING C-3023 Phone: 252-244-0599 Fax: 252-244-5899 PO Box 354 Vanceboro, NC 28586 CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA SUMMARY TAX GPIN: 6672-78-3003 (PIN: 15-M359) CE -1 11.55 ACRES CE - 2 4.19 ACRES CE - 3 1.69 ACRES TOTAL AREA = 17.43 ACRES R�Jlllwiillii: A F. A *I .-Sbd "HaWKY116 IF a <e> A ffil 'got SITE 1738 4 I - 4W M , 1739 732 I WMITY SKETCH NTS I C ss kl�- SEAL L-3824 OK;v Approved, Beaufort Co. Minnil1r,, KOT Sojecro Subdwiision Reg at' 3 .01. 0 sutidivision Administrator Do% 4 1411MAIL L COT" WAT TM FLAT WS MM UMER MY SUPONOW FROM A 3UR14EY 1111AVE iJF EIt MY VOCR"Sm 0= otmallwym 111=011111=1 IN BOW NL. PA" =01111111M k 1"T ?w SOUIONVES NOT SURVEM AN QVILY 89WAM AS DRAW FWN 1lE01111111114111OK FOU111110 IN 9001K — PACE — INAT T*4 RAW OF POUMOR As CALCULAIM 15 11:110AW. VAT IM FLAT 111111115 FWARED 64 A00011100"CE " " 47-30 AS AMENDED. STATE OF "OM eAROUP&A COLINTY Of BEAUFORT 1. "s 6j, ft c 5 — . KV&V Or WAUFORT OMM CERWY 111HIAT 1w M& OR PLAT TO 111111111M IM CEWrWAIM 6 AFFIXED TO MOM IYAV"y FAX11011111113MIS FOR REOOAOM It ztj� 6 www 015P DAN PAGE 1 OF 3 CONSERVATION V A r cX EASEMENT I CONTRACT NO. 003986 1! i'[SPO NO. 007-K ENHANCEMENT PR6OGRA-M IMS NO. 95015 L STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE., III AND CHAD ASHLEY POOLE 'BATH TOWNSHIP - BEAUFORT COUNTY - NORTH CAROLINA 8E PROJECT110. 125" 6 DATE: 6-17-13 SCALE:1" = 300' P c- - -1 :9 - Ll— i�-- 13-0015 SEE PAGE 3 FOR 5' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT .14E ED COX DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666 a MATTHEWS RESET N gg,50'19' E ' 3644.92` TIE HAD 637 700 17611 NCGS DEEM E 2672165.1300 HAD 6372007 N 654601.4000 E 2668520 -9600 TIDE 191 LAS 6 T . LLC DEED BOOK 1756 PAGE 817 l N JACK B• GODLEY li DEED BOOK 903 PAGE 666 � teas r. PC F SLIDE 17 -5 €x- r IP 131.00' TIE 1IICINITY 5KETGi 'w -O PO TREE -°° �Ex E. r REBAR ONLINS 50.OW FROM PINE REMAINS OF OLD DITCH 744.00" \ a4nQ5o9• � SIR \ � Y°- 15 S 02°37 °04' W JOE ED COX � � 36.00' TIE DEED B 993 PAGE 666 { \ RRICK FOUNDATION OF OLD TOWCO eARN 16 STEPHEN RICHARD, POOLE, III \ 14w`26' C3 CE -2 CHAD A, POOLE \ n� DEED BOOK 1325 PAGE 464 \ Trs� S 744'14' E " ° PIN. 19- 005354 17107' TIE STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. LUCN40A T, POOLE DEED BOOK 906 PAGE Ili CAUL PIN:15- 006303 MANN LIM AS CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 1735 DISTANCE SHOW K PI SP IS 62S P6 B SLOE 266 CALLS FOR THE DISTANCE TO BE 7$6120'. v :r Pr ft AtTA;D E tic C% 10' RIGHT OF WAY A EASMENT DB 665 PAGE 723 (CID W r 6j( T•"to POINT Ex. I' IF, S 41.44'03' W 6 -Ie' BtOMD .5• Tic FROM Ex. REBAR IN PEOPLES ROAD TO SET REBAR IN AS cu I �9 FOR 4N Ex_ I` f 536 °33 "0 ?'W 06 1756 P6 047 mm*D 1, 92.00' TtE f F ,4 ! EX, I• MBAR IN PEOPLES Am ON SHOLILD" AS CALLED FOR IN OF ROM Ce 0" PG $17 N62� 26.3754 f E 2673173.7062 6 627638,1603 2676461.6388 7 y4ck 2676689.Z39Z SEE PAGE 3 FOR 5' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT .14E ED COX DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666 a MATTHEWS RESET N gg,50'19' E ' 3644.92` TIE HAD 637 700 17611 NCGS DEEM E 2672165.1300 HAD 6372007 N 654601.4000 E 2668520 -9600 TIDE 191 LAS 6 T . LLC DEED BOOK 1756 PAGE 817 l N JACK B• GODLEY li DEED BOOK 903 PAGE 666 � teas r. PC F SLIDE 17 -5 €x- r IP 131.00' TIE 1IICINITY 5KETGi 'w -O PO TREE -°° �Ex E. r REBAR ONLINS 50.OW FROM PINE REMAINS OF OLD DITCH 744.00" \ a4nQ5o9• � SIR \ � Y°- 15 S 02°37 °04' W JOE ED COX � � 36.00' TIE DEED B 993 PAGE 666 { \ RRICK FOUNDATION OF OLD TOWCO eARN 16 STEPHEN RICHARD, POOLE, III \ 14w`26' C3 CE -2 CHAD A, POOLE \ n� DEED BOOK 1325 PAGE 464 \ Trs� S 744'14' E " ° PIN. 19- 005354 17107' TIE STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. LUCN40A T, POOLE DEED BOOK 906 PAGE Ili CAUL PIN:15- 006303 MANN LIM AS CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 1735 DISTANCE SHOW K PI SP IS 62S P6 B SLOE 266 CALLS FOR THE DISTANCE TO BE 7$6120'. v :r Pr ft AtTA;D E tic C% 10' RIGHT OF WAY A EASMENT DB 665 PAGE 723 (CID W r 6j( T•"to POINT TABLE S 41.44'03' W 6 -Ie' NORTHING Tic FROM Ex. REBAR I TO SET REBAR IN 2674648 -6727 THE M OF THE PERMANENT ACCESS EASEEl4IT / CONTROL POINT I 2674644.2623 F ,4 ! EX, I• MBAR 628664,9304 ON SHOLILD" 4 OF ROM 2675914.0916 N62� 26.3754 -m. E 2673173.7062 SEE PAGE 3 FOR 5' PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT .14E ED COX DEED BOOK 993 PAGE 666 a MATTHEWS RESET N gg,50'19' E ' 3644.92` TIE HAD 637 700 17611 NCGS DEEM E 2672165.1300 HAD 6372007 N 654601.4000 E 2668520 -9600 TIDE 191 LAS 6 T . LLC DEED BOOK 1756 PAGE 817 l N JACK B• GODLEY li DEED BOOK 903 PAGE 666 � teas r. PC F SLIDE 17 -5 €x- r IP 131.00' TIE 1IICINITY 5KETGi 'w -O PO TREE -°° �Ex E. r REBAR ONLINS 50.OW FROM PINE REMAINS OF OLD DITCH 744.00" \ a4nQ5o9• � SIR \ � Y°- 15 S 02°37 °04' W JOE ED COX � � 36.00' TIE DEED B 993 PAGE 666 { \ RRICK FOUNDATION OF OLD TOWCO eARN 16 STEPHEN RICHARD, POOLE, III \ 14w`26' C3 CE -2 CHAD A, POOLE \ n� DEED BOOK 1325 PAGE 464 \ Trs� S 744'14' E " ° PIN. 19- 005354 17107' TIE STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. LUCN40A T, POOLE DEED BOOK 906 PAGE Ili CAUL PIN:15- 006303 MANN LIM AS CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 1735 DISTANCE SHOW K PI SP IS 62S P6 B SLOE 266 CALLS FOR THE DISTANCE TO BE 7$6120'. v :r Pr ft AtTA;D E tic C% 10' RIGHT OF WAY A EASMENT DB 665 PAGE 723 (CID W r 6j( T•"to POINT TABLE POINT NUMBER NORTHING EASTING I 628H4.4479 2674648 -6727 2 6282281620 2674644.2623 3 628664,9304 2675776.0613 4 628504.9664 2675914.0916 5 626036,7998 2676300.5491 6 627638,1603 2676461.6388 7 6ZT805 -9695 2676689.Z39Z 8 627753.2715 2676358.1626 9 6Z7971.75M 2675960.4144 10 6Z6136.73K 2675338.0220 II 628324.0627 2675751.3580 12 626134.3240 2675173.7341 13 628066.7629 2676727,2202 14 628766.4600 2676554-0844 15 628700.4382 2676783,8735 16 628618.732!1 2676888.5689 17 626307,2616 2676945.9500 17A 628003,4042 26767%.3916 Ill 628163,6440 Z6769ZI -7765 19 628059,3583 26770116.3387 20 6278381795 2677207.4280 21 627740.7911 2677086.6530 22 627 %7.6786 2676839 -4440 23 6211064-9928 2676862 -5225 t t"- r 4�+�IA•R� t POINT 2 Ex. r V N5.8383 a I E 2674616_&SIO - "� \'j' S 62°20'50` Eda7. .� Ilt C i7 29.99' TIE 5 C7L OF C SIR EU s N 13 °30 °16• E J 5' PERMANENT � 4, s �4a + -1 717.16' ACCESS \ TIE 6 TO 13 'k 6 EASEMENT \ \ tt LIZ STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE, 111 PERMANENT 13 qQ v' \ 4. CONTROL PONT 2 !1 Ca Pow t4' As ACCESS ,y ryd' 19 E.X. r IF r/ - `, c w #A CHAD A. POOLE PC SHOWN 2" EASEMENT , CE-3 \ N 6m75.sss3 DEED BOOK 1325 PAGE 484. o � 30' DRARIAGE 1aA E 2674616.4510 PIN: 15 -005359 EASEMENT AS 97 LOW AS SHOWN ON NO 6 Si DE B 6 C 5 \ n ~ FG 37 AAA} AS BALLED SEE NOTE 7 ON _ ZO \ '• ¢ C ^{� o FOR ROPER TO WV SF ET 1 .._... - \ 30` RIGHT E ° ° . z n CORDON. T W, . 30 POINT 'A' AS 2I a.� -° LINE AS PER MB 4 PG 70 \ \ WAY a E1�S41@iT "�;pa"t fl ROPER TO W,M. s}gyRg 0t1 - AS *S"DWIN ON PC Zi ORDON DB 160 K 374 PC B SLIDE 266 - • " f1" SNt r + -" DB 673 PG 619 \ 8 SLIDE Z66 tat} ACRES)- ---°� .. g8z. s V9 VAEE LEGEND ~ 0, t . 53f CAi • . s' r �*' ® aasnwc Aa1c91r PAVE \ 3 T /E' .,�-� 4I p 91!1 311• L EAS OF cor�ITi�L PBGET s 1N �" \ 65 d8 _ 580° WAY a SHOWN ON Pi 551'06'44°IN � T S \ t- Ex. r 20' T C N 75°y1't,9' W EA. it REBA12 ' € Eao4sriN1C AIG4 656 46.65° T1E As sSLIDE aH PC 68,99' TIE - N NALLIL '7 B SLIDE z66 N $17776.5460 � � EA4 €�IIa4� AA'LE' Ex. I' E °'�'28'S E 2676MA700 CCU E1P.S`nW N7QIYG All ARAI T � AS $78° I0• RIGHT OF WAY END OF 10` S77 °28'39'W \ s1llt>aIN x96 1151 52` T a EASMENT RIGHT OF WAY - � `STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. 113.27' TIE SIR SET g� Al \ Ex. 1` DB $65 PAGE 723 EA�''ENT LUCINDA T. POOLE • AIPS AAD PORIPT gTi STEPI^�N R, POOLE, JR. DEED 1300K 8.35 PAGE 754 8/144 FNGPdT or 11912 \ sT�PHEN R. POOLE. PONT LOCATED 91 LUCINDA T. POOLE N 008"6 Sw E 6 LUCINDA T POOLE II CA- OF CAUL DEED BOOK 673 PAGE 619 Or CQA Y�IMW �7 \ y DO 836 PAGE 761 STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. WHERE THE OLD TRACT 11 C&C61LA7fa PCWTS f S AEBAR 1 LUCINDA T. POOLE BRANCH CRDBCED WIN CAPS AFIDP 0316HRCBM LS � QEEQ 8tX11C 8]3 PAGE 619 AND IS CALLED FOR COIPLET1a EX. r EIP IN DB m PG 389 a \ tDISTE!'RMV TRACT I DB 260 PC 374 STEPHEN R. POOLE. JR. As CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCED04S TIES PIPLIFF7iTY { \ 1751' • BOOK ID PAGE 506 - - - PKY� ry LIME IMOr � LUCINDA T, POOLE S.E. POOLE VS J.E. MAW 6 OTHERS CEI NT RE 36' 4tAR1� DEED 35tH; 635 PAGE 765 AND CALLED FOR Ot DD 600 PAGE 361 AS comm L3 +A7A79f EASEJia]VT 84XiNiUYPY G4M THE COMMON C OF THE PALL WATERS TIE FROM CONTROL POINT LINE TABLE LAND AND SHOWN ON PC B SLOE 266 2 TO CORNER NO, 1 � LINE BEARING LENGTH COP3€RYAYKW EASE ENr AREA NORTH CAROLINA S 26012'38• E 68.43' BEAUFORT COUNTY I L1 N73- ZZ24.191 113-71' 77. 0' i c1<2 L2 N73 °22'26•E 1177.01' cAAIK This MaWPIM was presented for registration and rawrded in TIE FROM CONTROL L3 5166 °31'07•E 150.49' Acm�ss FAsawwr � POINT 3 Ta POINT NO IN 1 c coo ®ia "Sly Anr. Spy this Office in Plat Calainet , Slide Y ` I N 14°44'35" W 248.24' This a ?7 day of 7 *wg 2013 at t ge Am M, CE3 Jennifer Leggett Whitehurst By aAbo, TIE FROM CONTROL POINT 3 ( II TO CORNER NO, 18 Reg!sW of Deeds A33t/Depllty 11 N 17 °31'30• E 443,84` L- S 7V55'b9' E 31.46' CIL OF 5' PEST ACCESS EASEMENT INSET A (i" = 100/) `r444l44!!H!!lilAAS/ s i s SEAL L-3824 f T r T i [[§ • � f• vs SUK�.��`�`' E s•• •• w �*i °° 900 150 0 300 800 !A t %- A 6!!!!!144144449 Gaskins Land Surveying, P.A. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING C-3023 Phone: 252-- 244 -0599 Fax: 252-244-5899 PO Box Vanceboro, NC 28586 a . . .,� • �R L 1 i i POINT tr OKAY - EASE PC ZVE 2" 08'1F.�... •ml i 1 Y NTS PAGE 2 OF 3 EEP CONTRACT NO. 003984 'i NO. !! IMS NO. 95015 BE PROJECT NO. 125116 DATE: • PC--T 5-y-& is-=Ill SEE INSET A 15 - 30` RIGHT E ° ° . z n CORDON. T W, . 30 POINT 'A' AS 2I a.� -° LINE AS PER MB 4 PG 70 \ \ WAY a E1�S41@iT "�;pa"t fl ROPER TO W,M. s}gyRg 0t1 - AS *S"DWIN ON PC Zi ORDON DB 160 K 374 PC B SLIDE 266 - • " f1" SNt r + -" DB 673 PG 619 \ 8 SLIDE Z66 tat} ACRES)- ---°� .. g8z. s V9 VAEE LEGEND ~ 0, t . 53f CAi • . s' r �*' ® aasnwc Aa1c91r PAVE \ 3 T /E' .,�-� 4I p 91!1 311• L EAS OF cor�ITi�L PBGET s 1N �" \ 65 d8 _ 580° WAY a SHOWN ON Pi 551'06'44°IN � T S \ t- Ex. r 20' T C N 75°y1't,9' W EA. it REBA12 ' € Eao4sriN1C AIG4 656 46.65° T1E As sSLIDE aH PC 68,99' TIE - N NALLIL '7 B SLIDE z66 N $17776.5460 � � EA4 €�IIa4� AA'LE' Ex. I' E °'�'28'S E 2676MA700 CCU E1P.S`nW N7QIYG All ARAI T � AS $78° I0• RIGHT OF WAY END OF 10` S77 °28'39'W \ s1llt>aIN x96 1151 52` T a EASMENT RIGHT OF WAY - � `STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. 113.27' TIE SIR SET g� Al \ Ex. 1` DB $65 PAGE 723 EA�''ENT LUCINDA T. POOLE • AIPS AAD PORIPT gTi STEPI^�N R, POOLE, JR. DEED 1300K 8.35 PAGE 754 8/144 FNGPdT or 11912 \ sT�PHEN R. POOLE. PONT LOCATED 91 LUCINDA T. POOLE N 008"6 Sw E 6 LUCINDA T POOLE II CA- OF CAUL DEED BOOK 673 PAGE 619 Or CQA Y�IMW �7 \ y DO 836 PAGE 761 STEPHEN R. POOLE, JR. WHERE THE OLD TRACT 11 C&C61LA7fa PCWTS f S AEBAR 1 LUCINDA T. POOLE BRANCH CRDBCED WIN CAPS AFIDP 0316HRCBM LS � QEEQ 8tX11C 8]3 PAGE 619 AND IS CALLED FOR COIPLET1a EX. r EIP IN DB m PG 389 a \ tDISTE!'RMV TRACT I DB 260 PC 374 STEPHEN R. POOLE. JR. As CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCED04S TIES PIPLIFF7iTY { \ 1751' • BOOK ID PAGE 506 - - - PKY� ry LIME IMOr � LUCINDA T, POOLE S.E. POOLE VS J.E. MAW 6 OTHERS CEI NT RE 36' 4tAR1� DEED 35tH; 635 PAGE 765 AND CALLED FOR Ot DD 600 PAGE 361 AS comm L3 +A7A79f EASEJia]VT 84XiNiUYPY G4M THE COMMON C OF THE PALL WATERS TIE FROM CONTROL POINT LINE TABLE LAND AND SHOWN ON PC B SLOE 266 2 TO CORNER NO, 1 � LINE BEARING LENGTH COP3€RYAYKW EASE ENr AREA NORTH CAROLINA S 26012'38• E 68.43' BEAUFORT COUNTY I L1 N73- ZZ24.191 113-71' 77. 0' i c1<2 L2 N73 °22'26•E 1177.01' cAAIK This MaWPIM was presented for registration and rawrded in TIE FROM CONTROL L3 5166 °31'07•E 150.49' Acm�ss FAsawwr � POINT 3 Ta POINT NO IN 1 c coo ®ia "Sly Anr. Spy this Office in Plat Calainet , Slide Y ` I N 14°44'35" W 248.24' This a ?7 day of 7 *wg 2013 at t ge Am M, CE3 Jennifer Leggett Whitehurst By aAbo, TIE FROM CONTROL POINT 3 ( II TO CORNER NO, 18 Reg!sW of Deeds A33t/Depllty 11 N 17 °31'30• E 443,84` L- S 7V55'b9' E 31.46' CIL OF 5' PEST ACCESS EASEMENT INSET A (i" = 100/) `r444l44!!H!!lilAAS/ s i s SEAL L-3824 f T r T i [[§ • � f• vs SUK�.��`�`' E s•• •• w �*i °° 900 150 0 300 800 !A t %- A 6!!!!!144144449 Gaskins Land Surveying, P.A. PROFESSIONAL LAND SURVEYING C-3023 Phone: 252-- 244 -0599 Fax: 252-244-5899 PO Box Vanceboro, NC 28586 a . . .,� • �R L 1 i i POINT tr OKAY - EASE PC ZVE 2" 08'1F.�... •ml i 1 Y NTS PAGE 2 OF 3 EEP CONTRACT NO. 003984 'i NO. !! IMS NO. 95015 BE PROJECT NO. 125116 DATE: • PC--T 5-y-& is-=Ill S 44"'03' W 6. IS' TIE FROM EX. REBAR TO SET REBAR 04 THE CJL OF THE PEWAMn ACCESS C-1 44;;4`l gx. �° _. 0 ll LEGEND ! OF Dalm Area Prue S 02°37104" w S in ENSAW JKW mw 36,00' TIE ® JDA E07M AAILE NPs Ell c r ail€ so SIT 71tB' mow � ►7a4 i MPS MD FONT SET R/MI 41111 OF ICY 0 ta011&n or cammmim fi mmr C+E%CXRAt1EG PIIawITS / SET W 1�8tRR Bill CAP'S ArMll 0010MC11111i IS CONFIll PRORER71' LINE SimttiEiETt RIR�7Y Lm MOT ARIEliti a AdM rAgOgWr MOLII46WY CANAL _ JC�o�4,' %1aV=VADM EASDAWT ANEA w tiI1GH17Y SICfTrrH i + M ii • � ' �""�►�, . JOE ED CO)( � r ® DEED BOOT( 493 PAGE 666 � :: � CANAL ^° ' ®. �'�''+�, % l✓ s Jill Al OF MNY - F.f9AlIpVT C/L OF 5' ACCESS iAll" ' ` ` Pc a BtJDE IMI EASEMENT FROM SIR AT R/W TO �`°` . � _``� • !3 CONTROL POINT #2 �- •`'+ i�'�2, TIC Jill Rill rat' tB1Y - EASEll of so P6 vj 1 M 31.73" ✓ °`' STEPHEN R, POOLE, JR. LUCINDA T. POOLE CANAL ® ' � ® S 74° DEED BOOK 946 PAGE 211 Jp SIR o 16s.40'sr►� , CONTROL_ POINT 2 C/L OF 5' ACC EX. r tP s EASEMENT t. _ 6"1iS -SM E 1674611.4514 MANN LINE AS CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS 1735 t DISTANCE SHOWN IN SP IS 125° ® j PC B SLIDE 266 CALLS FOR THE DISTANCE TO BE 7661 No � v 4b '► NPS _' 1 At y 54' RIGHT OF WAY A EASMENT �. t f I AS SHOWN ON PC 6 SLIDE 266 " .� 1 _ fill hcS 1�1'I "**PcVc $ r r d f � 1 t kO7A rED 'D 2 TO 1: SEAL., i p L4 -3824 sw 12 i t' �^ C-� f F' f r D $RIB E c; 10' RIGHT OF WAY A EASMENT / DB,865 PAGE 723 f TT NORTH CAROLINA BEAUFORT COUNTY Gaskins Land Surveying, PA._ PROFESSIONAL � . 0 9" 252-244-5899 PO Box 354 l ! NC 28586 100 50 0 100 200 9CAta: 1 - 100' re � NITS [L- L12 ( SEE SHEET 2 I STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE, III 6 CHAD A. POOLE DEED BOOK 1325 PAGE Wi PIN: HP 405M �yz :r Q r en LINE AS SHOWN ON NO 6 PG 37 AND AS CAI IN ORIGINAL DEED FROM ROPER TO W.W COMM, �+ 09 180 PG 344 8 ROPER TO W.M. CORDON DO 260 PG 376 i5111 ACRBD. EX. i' EIP (DISTURBED) AS CALLED FOR IN SPECIAL PROCEDINGS 1735, BOOK tO PAGE 506 S.E. POOLE VS J,E, 11AHI 6 OTHERS AND CALLED FOR IN DB 804 PAGE 361 AS THE COMMON CORNER OF THE PAUL WATERS LAND AND SHOWN ON PC B SLIDE 266 1 4 fi a. f O v9' 1N EX. 1' EIR AS SHOWN ON PC C SLIDE 220 O Fillip m EX- I' IF 10 T V4 EEP CONTRACT NO. 003986 ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM SPO NO. 007 -K IMS NO. 95015 STEPHEN RICHARD POOLE,, III AND CHAD ASHLEY POOLE BATH TOWNSHIP NORTH BE PROJECT NO. 125116 DATE. 6 -17 =13 SCALE: 1" = 100' e- -Z S &/. 7 19 -MB 16.0 APPENDIX B - BASELINE INFORMATION DATA MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 16.1 USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms — per regional supplement to 1987 Manual (USACE Routine Wetland Forms were not completed for this project, as the potential wetland areas investigated did not meet necessary criteria) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 16.2 NCWAM Forms — Existing Wetlands (NC Wetland Assessment Method (WAM) Forms were not provided for this project, as the NC Division of Water Quality did not require them at the time this project was contracted.) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 16.3 NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: /yl Z�10 Project: ,�,�'01- ��c -P' Ca Latitude: Evaluator: Site: (j 7-L Longitude: Total Points: Other Stream is at least intermittent County: if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30 3,6 1 '1�11k- e.g. Quad Name: A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= S Absent .Weak Moderate Strong ia. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence 0 1 1 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 2`Z 3 5. Active /relic floodplain 0 1 2 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 1 (E) 3 7. Braided channel 0 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 9 a Natural levees FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV 2.0. Other = 0 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 0 © 2 3 11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 0.5 1 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence, No 10. Yes = 3 rvian -niauc UILLMUN are [JUL rateo; see aiscussions in manuai R. Hvrirnlnnv (Siihtntal = 1 14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0 1 2 0 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water in channel -- dry or rowin season 0 1 2 ,�,- L 16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes 1,5 C. Bioloav ( Suhtotal = In 1 20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 0 21b. Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 CO-5-D 1 1.5 23. Bivalves 0 1 2 3 24. Fish 0 0.5 1 .5 25. Amphibians CID 0.5 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 (T) 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus. _Y9-5. (:T:) I 1 1.5 Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV 2.0. Other = 0 news eu gnu e- wous un ine presence or upiana piams, item za tocuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) S«c SvA/tr�d- � GCt�'{- Owe; Cec�1 Sketch: sgr,•�vl „� North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1 Date: mruc, 3 Zolc Project: S_ C�c�-r C Qrn Latitude: Evaluator: Site: Longitude: Total Points: Other Stream is at least intermittent 2 County: e.g. Quad Name: if? 19 or perennial if >_ 30 O � A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= Absent Weak Moderate Strong 1 a. Continuous bed and bank OD 1 2 3 2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3 3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence 0 1 2 3 4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 1 7 2 3 5. Active /relic floodplain 0 1 M 3 6. Depositional bars or benches 0 ` 1 2 3 7. Braided channel 1 2 3 8. Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2 3 9 a Natural levees 0 1 2 3 10. Headcuts 0 1 2 3 11. Grade controls 0 (UM) 1 1.5 12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 1.5 13. Second or greater order channel on existing USGS or NRCS map or other documented evidence. No Yes = 3 a Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual B. Hydrology Subtotal = 14. Groundwater flow /discharge 0 1 2 3 15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or Water in channel -- dry or growing season 0 1 1 3 16. Leaflitter 1.5 1 0.5 0 17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1 1.5 18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack lines) 0 0. 1 1.5 19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes W115 C. Biology (Subtotal = 6 20b. Fibrous roots in channel 3 2 1 2 1 b Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1 0 22. Crayfish 0 1 1.5 23. Bivalves 1 2 3 24. Fish 0 0. 1 1.5 25. Amphibians 0 0.5 1 1.5 26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1 1.5 27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 1 2 3 28. Iron oxidizing bacteria /fungus. 0 0.5 1 1.5 29 b. Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other 0 Items 20 and 21 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants. Sketch: Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) /19051 ek AL.A,141A 1 _' crLI -J",. 6ccll (X-t _ rn J111 16.4 FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Appendix A Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects Version 1.4 Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the environmental document. 6 Version 1.4, 8118105 Part 1: General Project Information Project Name: sl. Clair Creek Stream and Welland Mitigation Project Count Name: Beaufort County E E P Number: 18- 003570 Project Sponsor: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Project Contact Name: Jake Byers. El Project Contact Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Project Contact E -mail: jbyers@mbakercorp.com EEP Project Manager: Heath erSmith Project Description The 5t. Clair Creek Stream and Wetland Mitigation project seeks to restore approximately 3,000 linear Feet (LF) of stream, 3,000 L.F of riparian buffer and 2 acres of wetlands for the purpose of obtaining mitigation credits in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. In addition, this project will accomplish significant ecological improvements through habitat restoration and a decrease in non point source pollution. The project is located in DEN sub -basin 03 -03 -07 and the local watershed 03020104, approximately five miles east of the Town of Bath. Project designs include Rosgen Priority I restoration of two unnamed tributaries to St. Clair Creek, and restoration of two acres of wetlands. For Official Use Only Reviewed By: Date tEO Project Manager Conditional Approved By: Date For Division Administrator FHWA ❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues Final Approval By: '� — 3 ') - � I U/(--. - Date For Division Administrator FHWA 6 Version 1.4, 8118105 Part 2: All Projects RegulationlQuestion Response Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA 1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? El Yes ❑ No 2. Does the project involve ground- disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of ❑ Yes Environmental Concern (AEC)? ❑ No ❑ NIA 3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? ❑ Yes ❑ No El N/A 4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management d❑ Yes Program? ❑ No ❑ N/A Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilltv Act IC ERCLA 1. Is this a "full- delivery" project? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. Has the zoning /land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ❑ Yes designated as commercial or industrial? No ❑ NIA 3. As a result of a limited Phase i Site Assessment, are there known or potential ❑ Yes hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? 0 No ❑ N/A 4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ❑ Yes waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? ❑ No 0 N/A 5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous ❑ Yes waste sites within the project area? ❑ No FZI NIA 5. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No R1 NIA National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of LJ Yes Historic Places in the project area? EJ No 2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPOITHPO concur? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 N 3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NIA Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition-Policies Act Uniform Act 1. Is thls a "full- delivery" project? 0 Yes ❑ No 2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? r Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A 3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? ❑ Yes [Z] No ❑ NIA 4. Has the owner of the property been informed: 0 Yes • prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and ❑ No • what the fair market value is believed to be? 0 NIA Version 1.4, 8/18/05 American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA 1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes Cherokee Indians? El No 2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 N/A 3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic El Yes Places? ❑ No 0 NIA 4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes ❑ No 0 NIA Anti uities Act AA 1. Is the project located on Federal lands? ❑Yes ❑ No 2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects ❑ Yes of antiquity? [❑ No El NIA 1 Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No �( NIA 4. Has a permit been obtained? El Yes ❑ No 0 NIA Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA 1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? ❑ Yes 0 No 2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NIA 3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NIA 4. Has a permit been obtained? ❑ Yes ❑ No N/A Endanclered Species Act ESA 1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat Yes listed for the county? ❑ No 2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes ❑Q No ❑ NIA 3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical El Yes Habitat? E] No ❑ NIA 4. Is the project `likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify" ❑ Yes Designated Critical Habitat? ❑ No ❑� N/A 5. Does the USFWS /NOAH- Fisheries concur in the effects determination? ❑ Yes ❑ No � N/A 6. Has the USFWS /NOAH- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination? El Yes ❑ No ❑r N/A Version 1.4, 8118105 Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites 1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory" U Yes by the EBCI? ❑,� No 2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed ❑ Yes project? ❑ No ❑Q NIA 3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred ❑ Yes sites? ❑ No 0 N/A Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA 1. Will real estate be acquired? r] Yes ❑ No 2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally Yes important farmland? ❑ No ❑ NIA 3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS? ❑�„ Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA 1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control /modify any❑ Yes water body? ❑ No 2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? r Yes ❑ No ❑ NIA Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section fi 1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, ❑ Yes outdoor recreation? 0 No 2. Has the N PS approved of the conversion? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NIA Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat 1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? ❑ Yes 0 No 2. is suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species? ❑ Yes ❑ No 0 NIA 3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the ❑ Yes project on EFH? ❑ No r NIA 4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? ❑ Yes ❑ No El NIA 5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred? Yes ❑ No 0 NIA Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA 1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? ❑ Yes 0 No 2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes ❑ No r NIA Wilderness Act 1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? El Yes 0 No 2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining El Yes federal agency? ❑ No 0 NIA Version 1.4, 8118105 NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natura Division of Coastal Management Beverly Eaves Perdue Braxton C. Davis Governor Director 5 March 2012 Jake Byers, EI Civil Associate/Proj ect Manager Michael Baker Engineering 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 Dear Mr. Beyers: Resources Dee Freeman Secretary This letter confirms that on 1 March 2012 I was onsite the headwaters of St. Clair Creek located off SR 1738 near the Town of Bath in Beaufort County, North Carolina. This letter also confirms receipt of your 2 March 2012 email and attached map titled "Figure 6b ". The purpose of my March 2012 site visit was to review the headwaters of St. Clair Creek in the area proposed for wetland and buffer restoration to determine if jurisdiction was warranted under General Statute (G.S.) 113A -100, the Coastal Area Management Act or G.S. 113 -229, the State's Dredge and Fill Law. Pursuant to North Carolina Administrative Code Subchapter 7H.0207(a) and G.S.113A- 113(b)(2), the headwater areas of St. Clair Creek identified in the aforementioned Figure 6b do not meet the definition of Public Trust Area or Estuarine Waters Areas of Environmental Concern. Therefore, the proposed wetland and buffer restoration work will not require a permit from this Division. I recommend that you contact Ms. Emily Jernigan with the US Army Corps of Engineers at (910) 251 -4605, concerning any Federal wetland jurisdiction and Mr. Roberto Scheller with the Division of Water Quality at (252) 948 -3940. I appreciate your concern and effort to comply with the permit requirements of this Division and encourage you to continue to consult representatives of this Division for future questions regarding Division of Coastal Management jurisdiction. Thank you for your time and concern in these matters and if you have any questions, please call me at (252) 948 -3854. Sincerely, Steve J. Trowell Coastal Management Representative Cc: David W. Moye — District Manager, Washington Regional Office, DCM Ted Tyndall — Assistant Director- DCM Emily Jernigan — US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Regulatory Field Office Roberto Scheller — N C Division of Water Quality, Washington Regional Office 943 Washington Square Mall, Washington, NC 27889 Phone: 252-946-64811 FAX: 252 - 948 -0478 Internet: www.nccoastalmanagement.net An Equal Opportunity \ Affirmative Action Employer NorthCarolina Naturally 16.5 FEMA Compliance - EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist The topography of the site supports the design without creating the potential for hydrologic trespass. The site is located in a FEMA mapped AE zone due to backwater from the Pamlico River. However, since St. Clair Creek is not listed on the FIS Report an extensive hydraulic analysis is not required to obtain a "No- Rise/No- Impact" certification as discussed with the Local Floodplain Administrator (Brandon Hayes) on October 4th, 2012. The project will also not require a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) following construction in order to document changes (reductions) to Base Flood Elevations (BFEs). The EEP Floodplain Checklist was provided to the Beaufort County Floodplain Manager along with this report. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -6 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT E ° ff nt ARQGRAM EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Project Location Name of project: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Name if stream or feature: UT2 and UT3 to St. Clair Creels County: Beaufort Name of river basin: Tar - Pamlico Is project urban or rural? Rural Name of Jurisdictional municipality /county: Beaufort County DFIRM panel number for entire site: 6662 Consultant name: Jacob Byers, PE Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Phone number: 919 -463 -5488 Address: 8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 600 Cary, NC 27518 FEMA Compliance—EEP Checklist StClaindoc Page 1 of 4 Design Information Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ". The project site includes two unnamed tributaries to St. Clair Creek, east of the Town of Bath off Peoples Road (see Figure 1). The site lies within NC Division of Water Quality subbasin 03 -03 -07 and local watershed unit 03020104040040. Currently, the project reaches (see Figure 3) are impacted by the historic draining of area wetlands for agricultural use and the lack of adequate riparian buffers. Project goals include approximately 3,200 linear feet (LF) of headwater stream restoration, and approximately 2.0 acres of riparian wetland restoration to improve area water quality and the surrounding ecosystems and to obtain mitigation credit in the Tar - Pamlico River Basin. Summarize stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority. Reach / Wetland Linear Feet 1 Acreage Priority UT2 2,200 LF Headwater Restoration UT3 1,000 LF Headwater Restoration UT2 Wetland 1.0 AC Ri arian Wetland Restoration UT3 Wetland 1.0 AC Riparian Wetland Restoration Floodplain Information Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)7 r Yes F" No If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined: • Redelineation • Detailed Study )v Limited Detail Study r- Approximate Study r° Don't know Located in AE Zone from backwater fi-om the Pamlico River, However St Clair Creek is not listed in the F1S Report. List flood zone designation: Check if applies: W AE Zone r Floodway r- Non - Encroachment rv- None r- A Zone r' Local Setbacks Required r No Local Setbacks Required If local setbacks are required, list how many feet: No specific setbacks required for areas not requiring a CAMA permit. We've coordinated with CAMA and are not required to obtain a CAMA permit, FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist StClair.doe Page 2 of Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside flo.odway /non - encroachment /setbacks? F Yes r No Land Acquisition (Check) r State owned (fee simple) r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build) lv Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project) Note: if the project property is state- owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department of Administration, State Construction Office attn: Herbert Neil y, 919 - 807 -4101 Is community /county participating in the NFIP program? r Yes r No Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NFIP (attn: Edward Curtis, (919 ) 715 -8000 x369 Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Brandon Hayes Phone Number: 252 -946 -7182 Floodplain Requirements This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA F No Action F No Rise F Letter of Map Revision T— Conditional Letter of Map Revision F Other Requirements List other requirements: Comments: Per conversation with Beaufort County LFPA, Brandon Hayes. ( s 0/if / / 2. ) Name: etc6b ByePS, P4 Signature: Title: Desrgn Fn4in«r v V Date: U Z ti` 1 D' FEMA ComEliance_EEP Checklist StOair.doe Page 3 of Criteria for Flooding Requirements Grading less than 5ac: Notify LFPA Not Regulated, No Community Set -hacks Grading more - No Impact Study than 5 ac LOMR if. Site BFE not< Establish Oft < Rise < 1 ft Defined W /Community BFE data. - CLOMR & LOMR if: (Zon A) Set -backs � Rise > 1 ft Regulated (SFHA) No Floodway (1 ft No -Rise) BFE defined (zones :1 ,1 Floowa 'I — �1ifl) d 3' defined (0 ft No -Rise) Non- Encroachme Area (Oft No -Ri - No Impact Study - CLOMR, LOMR if Rise not met -- LOMR, if Rise < 0.1 ft Summary of Scenarios Zone SFHA BFE Floodway Comm. Floodplain Criteria (map) Or Non- Set -back Encroachment X,B,C No No No No a. Notify Floodplain Administration FP Dev. Permit maybe required A Yes No No No a. If grading < 5 ac, notify LFPA. A Yes No No Yes a. If No -Rise = 0 ft, LOMB not required . If Rise > 0 ft, LOMR is Required c. If Rise > 1 ft, CLOW is required AE, Yes Yes Wo n/a a. No -Rise Study Al -A30 b. CLOMR if > 1ft c. LOMR EFW Yes Yes Yes /a a. No -Rise Study 1 -A30 b. CLOMR if > 0 ft ^ c. LOMR FEMA Compliance EEP Checklist StClair.doe Page 4 of Byers, Jake From: Brandon Hayes < brand on. hayes @co.beaufort.nc.us> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:16 AM To: Byers, Jake Subject: Re: St Clair Creek Restoration Project Mr. Byers As per our conversation, since the restoration work you are doing is very minimal you will not need anything from Beaufort County. Thanks Brandon Hayes CFM - - - -- Original Message - - - -- From: Byers, Jake [mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com] Sent: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:45:25 +0000 To: brandon.hayes @co.beaufort.nc.us Subject: St Clair Creek Restoration Project > Mr. Hayes, • Please see the attached documents for the location of the • proposed stream restoration project in Beaufort County and for • the FEMA FIRM map with the proposed conservation easement in • red. As per our discussion on October 4, 2012, please • re- confirm that no action is needed in regards to a flood study • in this area since our work in this zone will be minimal. This • area is in a SFHA due to backwater from the Pamlico River. > Please feel free to call or email with any concerns or questions. > Thanks, > -Jake > Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE > Civil Engineer > Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. > 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600 1 > Cary, NC 27518 > 919 - 463 -5488 Main > 919 - 463 -5490 Fax > 919 - 481 -5748 Direct > 919 - 259 -4814 Mobile > ibyers @mbakercorp.com <mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com> • From: Byers, Jake • Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:48 AM > To: brandon.hayes @co.beaufort.nc.us > Subject: FW: St Clair Creek Restoration Project • From: Byers, Jake • Sent: Thursday, October 04, 2012 8:46 AM > To: 'brandon.hayes @co.beaufor.nc.us' > Subject: St Clair Creek Restoration Project > Please see attached. > Thanks > Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE > Civil Engineer > Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. > 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 600 > Cary, NC 27518 > 919 - 463 -5488 Main > 919 - 463 -5490 Fax > 919 - 481 -5748 Direct > 919 - 259 -4814 Mobile > ibyers @mbakercorp.com <mailto:ibyers @mbakercorp.com> E -Mail correspondence to and from this sender may be subject to the State of North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to Third Parties. 2 16.6 Buffer Rules Compliance MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 16 -7 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT NCDENR North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H. Sullins Dee Freeman Governor Director Secretary January 22, 2010 DWQ EXPO 10 -0062 Beaufort County Mr. Stephen Poole, Jr. 4847 Sidney Road Belhaven, NC 27810 Subject Property: Property Located off(NCSR 1738) People Road 2 Drainage Features to St. Clair Creek. Tar- Pamlico River Basin On -Site Determination for Applicability to the Tar - Pamlico River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0259)-EXPRESS REVIEW PROGRAM Dear Mr. Poole: On January 20, 2010 at the request of Mr. Hal Bain of Rummel, Klepper & Kalil, l conducted an on -site determination to review two drainage features located on the subject properties for applicability to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0259). The features are labeled as "SCIA and SC213" on the attached maps initialed by me on January 22, 2010. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has determined that the features labeled as "SCIA and SC2B" on the attached maps, and highlighted in blue are subject to the Tar - Pamlico Buffer Rules. The subject features (SC 1 A) starts at the culvert crossing on People Road SR 1738, (N 35° 27370', W 761 44.361'), marked on the ground with yellow DWQ Flagging, and follows the drainage downstream to the cast comer of the field at N 351 27.216' W 76° 43.651' and marked on the ground with yellow DWQ flagging (see maps for SCIA). The second feature SUB is 1.023 miles north of SC I A on People Road. The subject feature starts at the inlet of culvert, marked on the ground with yellow DWQ flagging, at N 35° 28.056', W 76° 43.702' and goes upstream west, northwest to end at point N 35128.140' W 76,43.880' and marked on the ground with yellow flagging as shown on the attached maps. 'lluc owner (or future owners) should notify the DWQ (and other relevant agencies) of this decision in any future correspondences concerning this property. This on -site determination shall expire live (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected parties that dispute a determination made by the DWQ or Delegated Local Authority that a surface water exists and that it is subject to the buffer rule may request a determination by the Director. A request for a determination by the Director shall be referred to the Director in writing c/o John Domey, DWQ Wetlands/401 Unit, 2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604 -2260. Individuals that dispute a determination by the DWQ or Delegated Local Nom Carona D:vslon of Water Cuawy 943 WaSh!rgan square W Washil,on, NC 27669 Nwe: 252-94644611 FAX: 252.946-9215 Inlernet www.ncrraterqua*.0g1 An Equal 0MIur";r} A;m ive AcWn Em.$Orw One NorthCarolina Natura!!Y Authority that "exempts" a surface water from the buffer rile may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. Applicants are hereby notified that the 60-day statutory appeal time does not start until the affected party (including downstream and adjacent landowners) is notified of this decision. D1VQ recommends that the applicant conduct this notification in order to be certain that third party appeals are made in a timely manner. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition, which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative I learings, 6714 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699 -6714. This determination is final and binding unless you ask fora hearing within 60 days. This letter only addresses the applicability to the buffer riles and does not approve any activity within the buffers. Nor does this letter approve any activity within Waters of the United States or Waters of the State. If you have any additional questions or require additional information please call Roberto Scheller in the Washington Regional Office at (252) 948- 1 3940. Sincerely, For of IC ns Attachments: Beaufort County Soil Survey map USGS Ransomville Quad map Goggle Earth map cc: Hal Bain, Rummel, Klepper R Kalil DWQ 40I /Wetland Express Unit File Copy Filenam 10-1062 Norui Management Commis ion DIPAU10 f for quality F0" Rash Buffer Reid { Q_ � . � ,� '- - - yam'' • = :- .6 X. 'n wamp $C1A SC1A o x. Ili Ch, + " i North Carottrk� EnvirBOntea' — / 1 ± 9a ant . fti�� "Ion � / %�ji�$s) St - -0t r Nn Buffer a` Name: RANSONWILLE Location: 035.27' 34.31" N 076' 44107 46" W Date: 1/22/2010 Caption: Express Stream Call for Poole Property, Beaufort Co. Scale: 1 Inch equals 1667 feet ff. CA Y%.. ra,..ref !mf 0* 7Q7eci Jtetpgfwmfdf.f.l, . ®w try, Mb kmt2 MM M.P. H"M Shmo Q---d MoA' f I S-z Google maps i 5., ��,.rf .• ,.....,.. _ „._.,,.., sir. Get Orcen�,f tEYAtevs i _F'd ::: S:"A - IFIs j SC2S U6lh..Mmnt .f!<fvm Ji Nad, i T, W. M— sr.ne renm Sri eNr.n Ioca!ron < <� > p no,f rn, v I't Yaw bYfietts.al9atar h4m t SC1A Wonh Gvotro Enritowmemat SCtA Nall WnoM Cmwizlon DrA N Wary Yor � Bufl9r � e RrAeweo b! - RemlfnUen F 17.0 APPENDIX C - MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA AND ANALYSES 17.1 Channel Morphology (Rosgen Analysis) 17.1.1 Existing Conditions 17.1.1.1 Channel Classification UT2 and UT3 to St. Clair Creek are small headwater streams with total drainage areas of approximately 89 and 30 acres respectively (Figure 2.2). Historically, the areas have been extensively drained for silvicultural and agricultural production. The UT's were ditched and moved from their historic flow paths to promote drainage from the adjacent farm fields and forested areas, which has resulted in a disconnection from their relic floodplain and headwater valleys. These conditions generally lead to a lowered water table and were observed throughout the site. The riparian vegetation throughout the site is a mix of planted pine areas and herbaceous grasses that are regularly maintained by mowing. For analysis purposes, Baker labeled the existing unnamed tributaries UT2 and UT3 respectively. The existing UT reach locations are shown on Figures 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 3. 1, and 17.2. UT2 begins at the most northwestern project boundary and flows east then south towards a farm access road. Field evaluations of intermittent/ perennial status and use of NCDWQ stream assessment protocols were difficult for UT2 since the channels on site were all maintained with an excavator during the late summer of 2010. As a result, no geomorphic or vegetation characteristics were evident along the reach. However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B. Field investigations and photographs taken during March 2010, prior to clean -out, were used to assist in determining jurisdictional status; however, the channels at that time had been impacted by recent timber harvest. The NCDWQ Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins Manual, Version 4.11 indicates that in situations with ditching and modified natural streams, contour crenulations and the presence of linear soil mapping units can be used to determine the presence of a natural stream channel. The LIDAR imagery for the site shows a distinct topographic valley signature along much of UT2, and the county soil survey shows a linear soil mapping unit just downstream of the project limits, as well as a steam feature that extends up into the project site. In addition, the landowner had observed fish and turtles in the channel, along with submerged aquatic vegetation. Based on these observations and its available drainage area (89 acres), the stream was determined to be a perennial stream channel and appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance. Like UT2, the UT3 channel was maintained during the summer of 2010; therefore, geomorphic and vegetation characteristics were difficult to assess to determine jurisdictional status. However, NCDWQ stream forms were completed and are included in Appendix B. UT3 is an intermittent stream that flows south from the most northeast project boundary. The same analysis as described for UT2 was conducted for UT3. The LIDAR data for the site indicates the presence of a valley, but the county soil survey does not indicate the presence of a stream feature. The drainage area for UT3 is smaller than that for UT2 (30 acres), but this drainage area is consistent with the drainages of small headwater reference sites that have been identified and surveyed in the same region. The MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT landowner also did not recall as extensive of a variety of aquatic life being present in the UT3 channel prior to the most recent maintenance work. Therefore, the reach was determined to be an intermittent stream channel, but appropriate for use with the Coastal Plain headwater stream guidance due to the defined valley signature. The total current length of the existing streams (UT2 and UT3) on the site is 3,735 LF. This number is approximate due to the highly altered flow path and is approximately measured along the main ditches that convey the drainage from each UTs watershed. Due to their channelized nature, the streams would most appropriately be classified as a Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system is questionable due to the highly altered states of the channels. Table 17.1 represents geomorphic data compiled from the existing condition survey. Table 17.1 Representative Existing Conditions Geomorphic Data for UT2 and UT3: Stream Channel Classification Level II St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Parameter Reach UT2 Reach UT3 Existing Reach Length (ft) 2,660 1,075 Drainage Area (sq. mi.) 0.14 0.05 Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)' 1.96 0.9 Feature Type Perennial Intermittent Channelized Stream Channelized Stream Rosgen Stream Type2 G G Bankfull Width (Wbkf) (ft)3 3.1 2.1 Bankfull Mean Depth, (dbkf) (ft)3 0.68 0.45 Width to Depth Ratio (Wbkf/dbk f)3 4.5 4.8 Cross - Sectional Area, Abkf (sq ft)' 2.1 1.0 Bankfull Max Depth (dmbkf) (ft)3 0.92 0.61 Floodprone Width (Wfpa) (ft)3 4.3 12.5 Entrenchment Ratio (Wfpa /Wbkf) (ft)3 1.39 1.4 Bank Height RatiO4 3.3 5.3 Approximate Longitudinal Stationing of Cross - Section 12 +00 13 +00 Along Existing Thalweg (ft) Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf = (`Lbkf /Abkf) (ft/s) 0.93 0.8 Channel Materials (Particle Size Index — d50) — Based on Bulk Samples di6 /d35 /dso /d84 /d9s(mm) 0.08/0.15/0.2/1.1 / 0.08/0.15/0.2/0.7 / 2.4 1.5 Average Valley Slope (ft/ft) 0.001 0.001 Average Water Surface Slope (S) (ft/ft) 0.0009 0.00085 Average Channel Sinuosity (K)6 N/A N/A Bankfull discharge and area estimated using NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) 2Due to their channelized nature, the streams would most appropriately be classified as Rosgen G stream type but use of this classification system is questionable due to the highly altered states of the channels No bankfull indicators were present inside the ditches so all bankfull parameters are based on bankfull cross - sectional area determined from the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) 4High bank height ratios (values greater than 2.0 indicate system -wide self - recovery is unlikely 5Bulk samples taken since pebble count procedure not applicable for sand -bed streams 6 Meander geometry information such as sinuosity, meander width, meander length, and radius of curvature were not measured because the channel exhibits minimal pattern since it has been straightened/channelized. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 17.1.1.2 Valley Classification The St. Clair Creek Site is located in eastern Beaufort County in the Outer Coastal Plain physiographic region of North Carolina. Undisturbed Coastal Plain valleys in this region are generally classified as Valley Type `X' (Rosgen, 2006). These low gradient landforms are typically characterized as large areas of broad, level flatlands (interstream terraces) with extensive floodplains intersected by anastomosed stream and wetland complexes. The underlying geology in this area is identified as Surficial Deposits and formed during the Quaternary Period. The Surficial Deposits formation consists primarily of lake or marine deposit (non - glacial) and varying amounts of eolian material and sand, clay, gravel and (Geologic Map of North Carolina, NC Geological Survey, 1998). 17.1.1.3 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment Baker performed general topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and produced contour mapping based on survey data in order to create plan set base mapping (see Section 18.0, Appendix D). Two representative cross - sections (one on UT2 and one on UT3) were also cut along the two main ditches to assess the current condition and overall stability of the stream channels. The existing cross - section data are shown in Figure 17.1. Since consistent bankfull indicators could not be identified in the field, bankfull cross - sectional areas were estimated using the EcoScience NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve to compare stability ratings. The representative cross - sections have a typical Bank Height Ratio (BHR) greater than 2.0. The cross - section data illustrate the channelized nature of the streams and the lack of a natural floodplain. The collected topography data showed UT2 and UT3 have average valley slopes of 0.001 foot/foot. Sinuosity and other pattern measurements for these existing ditches are inappropriate due to the straightened/ channelized nature of the ditches. Both reaches are entrenched but are stable due to the very low gradients and small watersheds. Figure 17.1 Existing Ditch Cross - Sections for Reach UT2 and UT3 1! V Max Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH BKF Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER Elev TOB Elev UT2 N/A G 2.1 3.1 0.68 0.92 4.5 3.3 1.39 3.66 6.26 Cross - section 8 6 4 = == 2 w 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Station -- -- Bankfull - -- Floodprone MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Max Stream BKF BKF BKF BKF BH F Feature Type Area Width Depth Depth W/D Ratio ER v TOB Elev UT3 N/A G 1.0 2.1 0.45 0.61 4.8 5.3 1.4 4.09 6.39 Cross - section 10 8 0 6 4 w 2 0 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Station - - -& -- Bankfull - - -& -- Floodprone 17.1.1.4 Channel Stability Sedimentation from bank erosion is a significant pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat. Predicting stream bank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for Non -point source Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) is not applicable to the coastal plain of North Carolina. Due to the very low gradients and small watersheds neither UT2 nor UT3 are contributing quantifiable sediment to the downstream watershed. This was visually verified in the field. No distinct erosion or sediment accumulation was observed along either UT. Though both UT2 and UT3 are laterally and vertically stable, neither provide significant habitat nor function as a headwater stream and wetland complex as they most likely did in the past. 17.1.1.5 Channel Evolution Channel stability is defined as the stream's ability to transport incoming flows and sediment loads supplied by the watershed without undergoing significant changes over a geologically short time - scale. A generalized relationship of stream stability was proposed by Lane (1955); it states that the product of sediment load and sediment size is in balance with the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in any one of these variables induces physical adjustment of one or more of the other variables to compensate and maintain the proportionality. Longitudinally, the water and sediment flows delivered to each subsequent section are the result of the watershed and upstream or backwater (downstream) conditions. Water and sediment pass through the channel, which is defined by its shape, material, and vegetative condition. Flow and sediment are either stored or passed through at each section along the reach. The resulting physical changes are a balancing act between gravity, friction, and the sediment and water being delivered into the system (Leopold et al., 1964). Observed stream response to induced instability, as described by Simon's (1989) Channel Evolution Model, involve extensive modifications to channel form resulting in profile, cross - sectional, and plan form changes, which often take decades or longer to achieve MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT resolution. The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes typical evolution in six steps: 1. Pre - modified 2. Channelized 3. Degradation 4. Degradation and widening 5. Aggradation and widening 6. Quasi - equilibrium. The channel evolution process is initiated when a stable, well- vegetated stream that interacts frequently with its floodplain is disturbed. Channelization, dredging, changing land use, removal of streamside vegetation, upstream or downstream channel modifications, and /or change in other hydrologic variables result in adjustments in channel morphology to compensate for the new condition(s). Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that can cause degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to over - steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving upstream in the form of a head -cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to aggrade. A new, low -flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998). The channel stability assessment incorporated qualitative site observations. Conclusions reached were used to define overall channel stability and determine appropriate restoration approaches for the site. UT2 and UT3 originate from watersheds in which the land use is predominantly agriculture and silviculture. A change in land use within the watersheds is not anticipated. Due to past channelization and straightening, both UT2 and UT3 are incised as evidenced by entrenchment ratios greater than 2.0. Both UT2 and UT3 currently exist in Step 2 of the Simon Channel Evolution Model. Due to very low gradients and small contributing watersheds, further degradation is not anticipated. 17.1.2 Proposed Morphological Conditions After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for restoration, an approach was developed that would address restoration of both stream and wetland functions within the project area. Prior to impacts from past channelization, topography and soils on the site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past as a headwater tributary stream and wetland system, eventually flowing into the larger St. Clair Creek system. Therefore, a design approach was formulated to restore this type of riparian headwater system. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream and wetland functions was selected and designed to restore historic flow paths. Then a grading plan was developed in order restore the historic valleys and adjacent wetland hydrology by filling existing ditches, removing past ditch spoil and other agricultural land manipulations. 17.1.2.1 Proposed Design Approach and Criteria Selection Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria for reaches UT2 and UT3. The approach was based on the potential for restoration as MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT determined during the site assessment. Next, the specific design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross - section dimensions, and a longitudinal profile could be described for developing construction documents. The design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected stream types and to allow natural variability of flow paths and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of flooding, re- colonization of vegetation, and watershed influences within the restored valley. The design plans have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. The design also reflects a philosophy that the stream will adapt to the inherent uniformity of the restoration project. This will allow the system to adjust over long periods of time under the natural flood processes, re- colonization of vegetation, and local topographic influences. UT2 and UT3 Restoration The restoration of both UT2 and UT3 will consider the USACE and NCDWQ guidance document entitled "Information Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina." Rather than the construction of a defined single thread channel, the current channelized stream will be filled and graded back to topographic contours that approximate the pre- drained condition. Field surveys were conducted to determine the elevation of the stream where it comes onto the project property, and the valley topographic elevations downstream. As discussed in Section 7, the tributaries have been channelized through an existing riparian headwater system. The channelization has disrupted the historic flow and flooding patterns of the site. Restoration of these reaches will seek to restore historic flow and flooding processes. Based on average valley slopes (UT2 0.001 foot/foot, UT3 0.001 foot/foot) and catchment areas (UT2 89 AC, UT3 30 AC), this area most likely functioned prior to disturbance as a headwater stream and wetland system (Rosgen `DA' stream type). Restoration will focus on filling in the drainage ditches, and restoring the pre- disturbed topography of the valley. The valley bottom will then be graded to restore the natural microtopographic variability that is common within multi - thread headwater systems. The system will be allowed to form multi- thread channels and diffuse flow patterns on its own over time. The restoration of UT2 will end near the existing culverted crossing at approximately Station 36 +50. At this location, the UT2 channel will flow through the proposed culverts and connect with the existing, stable single thread channel prior to its confluence with the larger St. Clair Creek system. The restoration of UT3 will end near the existing culverted crossing at approximately Station 22 +78. The restored stream within this area flows through a previously identified jurisdictional wetland (See Section 21, Appendix G) where prior to disturbance the historic flow path was located. Only the minor grading will performed in this area. A high spot in the existing topography where a past farm road once existed will be removed and blended in to the surrounding topography. At the end of UT3, the channel will be allowed to flow into the existing headwater stream and wetland system prior to the system's confluence with the larger St. Clair Creek system. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -6 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.2 Mitigation Work Plan MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 17.1.3 Reference Reach Data Indicators Reference reach surveys are valuable tools for comparison. The morphologic data obtained such as dimension, pattern, and profile can be used as a template for design of a stable stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material. In order to extract the morphological relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow the designer to `mimic' the natural, stable form of the target channel type. Often the best reference data are from adjacent stable stream reaches, or reaches within the same watershed. Many local headwater valleys have been identified with similar drainage areas, soils, and topography; however, most that were investigated had been drained and any stream and /or wetland features that may have been present had been channelized or modified. Therefore, reference data and past projects from other Coastal Plain stream systems were evaluated to help in the development of design criteria. Baker conducted research in the Croatan National Forest to examine the landscape position at which small Coastal Plain headwater tributaries develop defined stream channels. Data collected indicate that for small tributary drainages, single thread channels are often found when drainage areas approach one square mile and slope is 0.001 foot /foot or greater. For smaller drainages and decreased slopes, mutli- thread systems that function more like headwater stream and wetland complexes are more common. These data help to provide a basis for evaluating the valley slope and topography of the project site and determining the stream systems that may have been present historically. While reference reaches can be used as an aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are limitations in smaller coastal plain headwater streams. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach quality streams is often controlled by slope, drainage areas and large trees and other deep rooted vegetation. Collectively, the data provide valuable information regarding the range of conditions documented for similar headwater stream systems. Figure 17.3 illustrates the data comparison for Coastal Plain headwater streams as a reference for design considerations. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -8 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.3 Channel Form Data Comparisons for Coastal Plain Headwater Stream References Drainage Area (acres) 17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis 17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in the humid Southeast is especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels. Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the bank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina are the backs MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT —FINAL DRAFT ♦Poorly Defined Channel Form Data Comparisons for CP Headwater Stream References 0.016 ■ ■Moderately Defined ■Well Defined �C UT2 •UT3 ■ 0.014 Well Defined � ■ Channels Moderately Defined Channels ■ ■ 0.012 0.01 UT3 UT2 '--- _ `�\.,,�■ Poorly Defined Channels m o aws T m 0.006 0.004 0.002 0 10 100 1000 Drainage Area (acres) 17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis 17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in the humid Southeast is especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels. Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the bank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina are the backs MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT —FINAL DRAFT ♦Poorly Defined ■ ■Moderately Defined ■Well Defined �C UT2 •UT3 ■ ■ Well Defined � ■ Channels Moderately Defined Channels ■ ■ UT3 UT2 '--- _ `�\.,,�■ Poorly Defined Channels Drainage Area (acres) 17.2 Bankfull Verification Analysis 17.2.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field can be difficult and subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1984; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon, 1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage in the humid Southeast is especially difficult because of dense understory vegetation and a long history of channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology. It is generally accepted that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge or effective discharge, is thought to be the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels. Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the highest scour line, or the top of the bank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators for streams in the Coastal Plain of North Carolina are the backs MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT —FINAL DRAFT of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of flat bankfull benches, or the top of bank (Sweet and Geratz, 2003). An accurate identification of bankfull stage could not be made throughout the site due to channelized conditions. For this reason, bankfull stage was identified by using regional curve information. Regional curve equations developed from the NC Coastal Plain study are provided by EcoScience (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) and are shown in Table 17.2. Due to man- made alterations, normal channel forming processes do not to occur at the site. 17.2.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curves) Hydraulic geometry relationships are often used to predict channel morphology features and their corresponding dimensions. The stream channel hydraulic geometry theory developed by Leopold and Maddock (1953) describes the interrelations between dependent variables such as width, depth, and area as functions of independent variables such as watershed area or discharge. These relationships can be developed at a single cross - section or across many stations along a reach (Merigliano, 1997). Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall /runoff relationships (FISRWG, 1998). Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage area. A primary purpose for developing regional curves is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un -gaged watersheds, as well as to help estimate the bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of 1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedence probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold, 1978; Leopold, 1994). However, it should be noted that in comparison to the NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve, the recurrence of bankfull events is much shorter (average 0.61 years) likely due to higher rainfall amounts, elevated water tables, and increased floodplain storage. Table 17.2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve Equations EcoScience Data (Sweet and Geratz, 2003) Qbkf = 8.79 AW 0.76 R2 =0.92 Abkf = 9.43 AW 0.74 R2 =0.96 Wbkf = 9.64 AW 0." R2 =0.95 Dbkf = 0.98 A,,, 0.36 R2 =0.92 The NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve estimates a bankfull cross - sectional area of approximately 2.1 square feet and a bankfull discharge of approximately 2.0 cfs for a 0.14 square mile watershed though it should be noted that this drainage area is much smaller than any of the streams used to develop this curve. The existing channel has cross - sectional areas at the top -of -banks that is approximately 19 square feet. As described in in Section 7.3, the Rosgen stream classification system (Rosgen, 1996) depends on the proper field identification of consistent geomorphic features related to the active floodplain, therefore bankfull verification was not possible in the field under these conditions. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -10 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 17.3 Sediment Transport Analysis 17.3.1 Methodology The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby being a "transport" reach and classified as a Rosgen "C" or "E" type channel. However, under headwater stream and wetland reference conditions where channel formation is poor, flows are often conveyed through multiple small channels across a relatively well defined floodplain. Microtopography in these headwater systems is quite variable, as a result of tree roots, tip mounds, and debris jams. Debris appears to be a critical component in maintaining the characteristics of diffuse flow, as stream energy is not sufficient to provide scour and movement of large debris. The design for reaches UT2 and UT3 involves the construction of broad /shallow flow paths along the valley bottom and allowing the system to form as a multi- thread channel; in essence, the restoration of a headwater stream and wetland system. Under normal conditions, sediment deposits in these systems and they are aggradational in nature, due to low flow velocities and scour stresses. Furthermore, sediment supply is typically limited, such that over time, these systems remain stable and deposited sediment becomes part of the natural processes of soil formation. Field observations from the project site and upper watershed such as a lack of depositional features confirm that sediment supply from upstream sources are limited, therefore sediment transport relationships are predicted to function normally in the restored reaches of UT2 and UT3. It should be noted that the modified Wolman pebble count ( Rosgen, 1994) is not appropriate for sand - bed streams; therefore, a bulk sampling procedure was used to characterize the bed material. The majority of the reach contains sand and silt stream bottom due to the parent soil. Bed material samples were collected to confirm these initial observations. The samples collected were taken to a lab and dry sieved to obtain a sediment size distribution. The sieve data shown in Figure 17.4 indicate that the UTs to St Clair Creek have an approximate D5O of 0.2 -mm indicating that under current conditions, the dominant bed material in the stream channel is fine sand. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -11 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.4 Sediment Particle Size Distribution Particle Size Distribution - UT2 100 90 60 70 60 rf- tCumulative Percent ■ Class Percent c 50 d IL 40 30 20 10 0 0,01 0.1 1 10 Particle Size Class (mm) Particle Size Distribution - UT3 100 90 60 tCumulaFiae Percent 74 ■ Class Percent 60 c u 50 d d 40 30 20 10 0 001 0.1 1 10 Particle Size Class (mm) MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -12 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT— FINAL DRAFT 17.3.2 Conclusions for Channel Forming Discharge Table 17.3 provides a bankfull discharge analysis and sediment transport data summary based on the bankfull regional curve flows, the Manning's equation discharges calculated from the representative cross - sections for each reach, and the bankfull design discharge calculated based on the proposed design valley cross - sections for UT2 and UT3. Table 17.3 Design Discharge and Sediment Transport Data Summary St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Downstream Bankfull Q, Bankfull Q, Bankfull Shear Stream Stream Area Drainage g NC Coastal Manning's 1 s Velocity Stress Power (min) Plain Regional Formula (ft /sec) (lbs /ft) (W /m2) Curve (cfs) (cfs) UT2 0.14 2.0 0.9 0.43 -0.95 0.014 0.091 UT3 0.05 0.9 0.3 0.26 -0.9 0.009 0.042 ' Bankfull discharge estimate is based on Manning's Equation for the design valley cross - section and an assumed n -value of 0.04. 2 NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve bankfull discharge estimates (Sweet and Geratz, 2003). s A range of flows is provided to account for variability of the calculation methods as well as to account for conditional changes within the project reaches due to increased drainage area. 17.4 Existing Vegetation Assessment Limited wooded riparian buffers exist along UT2 and UT3. While these buffers do exist, they consist of planted Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) except for a small area of successional deciduous forest along upper UT3 on the left bank that consist of mature Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and various oaks (Quercus spp.). Woody shrub and vine species include Blackberry (Rubus spp.), Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and Netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata). Historic land management surrounding the project area has been primarily for agricultural and silvicultural purposes through the alteration of drainage patterns and the removal of native vegetation in the riparian zone. All riparian buffer areas have been significantly disturbed. The primary invasive species vegetation present on the project site is Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) which is sparsely found throughout the riparian buffer areas. 17.5 Site Wetlands 17.5.1 Jurisdictional Wetland Assessment The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of wetlands and waters of the United States in accordance with the provisions on Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and subsequent federal regulations. Wetlands have been defined by the USACE as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas" (33 CFR 328.3(b) and 40 CFR 230.3 (t)). The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or more wetland characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland characteristics included: MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -13 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 1. Prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation. 2. Permanent of periodic inundation or saturation. 3. Hydrcc soils. On June 5, 2007, the USACE and US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued joint guidance for their field offices for Clean Water Act jurisdictional determinations in response to the Supreme Court's decision in the consolidated cases of Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (USEPA and USACE, 2007). Based on this guidance, the agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters: • Traditional navigable waters (TNWs) • Wetlands adjacent to TNWs • Non - navigable tributaries of TNWs that are considered relatively permanent waters (RPWs). Such tributaries flow year -round or exhibit continuous flow for at least 3 months. • Wetlands that directly abut RPWs. The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a standardized analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water: Non - navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent waters (non -RPWs) Wetlands adjacent to non -RPWs Wetlands that are adjacent to but do not directly abut an RPW. The significant nexus analysis is fact - specific and assesses the flow characteristics of a tributary and the functions performed by all its adjacent wetlands to determine if they significantly affect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of downstream TNWs. A significant nexus exists when a tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of a TNW. The USACE and USEPA will apply the significant nexus standard within the limits of jurisdiction specified by the Supreme Court decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County ( SWANCC) v. US Army Corps of Engineers. Under the SWANCC decision, the USACE and USEPA cannot regulate isolated wetlands and waters that lack links to interstate commerce sufficient to serve as a basis for jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act. Though isolated wetlands and waters are not regulated by the USACE, within the state of North Carolina isolated wetlands and waters are considered "waters of the state" and are regulated by the NCDWQ under the isolated wetlands rules (15A NCAC 2H. 13 00). Following a desktop review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), NRCS soil survey and USGS quadrangle maps, a licensed soil scientist from The Catena Group performed a hydric soils delineation in February 2011 (see Section 19, Appendix E). A field survey of the project area was conducted by Baker wetland scientists in January 2012 to investigate potential wetlands throughout the hydric soils area and confirm perennial and intermittent streams in the project area. Excluding the known jurisdictional wetland delineated by a third party at the end of UT3 the findings during the subsequent wetland investigation determined that there were small wetland areas adjacent to the project boundaries at the upper ends of both UT 2 and UT3. However; any temporary impacts to the marginal or fringe wetlands associated with the restoration activities would be considered minimal and would involve minor surface excavation or roughening, re- establishment of native wetland vegetation, and adjustments to drainage patterns as necessary to restore historic channel pattern to the system. 17.5.2 Wetland Impacts and Considerations However, it is likely that wetlands were historically present in some of these locations by evaluating existing soils, hydrology and hydrophytic vegetation within the project reaches. The original plant community located in these wetlands was most likely indicative of other wetlands in the region, but past agricultural land use practices have altered the composition of the plant community currently present. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -14 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT These wetland conditions have been altered and the hydrological connection between the historic wetlands, streams and ground water has been partially lost due to a series of ditches that runs through the project area. Information on hydric soils located during investigations, data from groundwater wells currently being monitored on -site, and topographic information have provided Baker with enough data to propose approximate boundaries for an additional total of 2.8 acres of wetlands to be restored under this project. After completing the proposed stream and wetland restoration practices, these areas will experience a more natural hydrology and flooding regime and the riparian buffer area will be planted with native species woody wetland vegetation that is tolerant of flooded conditions. The design approach for the headwater stream and wetland system will also enhance any potential areas of adjacent fringe or marginal wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated stream profile) and a more frequent over -bank flooding regime. 17.5.3 Climatic Conditions The average growing season (defined as the period in which air temperatures are maintained above 28° Fahrenheit at a frequency of 5 years in 10) for the project locale is 282 days, beginning on February 28th and ending December 6th (MRCS Beaufort County WETS Station: Aurora 6 N, NC0375, 2002). The area experiences an average annual rainfall of 50.01 inches as shown on Table 17.4. In much of the southeastern US, average rainfall exceeds average evapotranspiration losses and these areas experience a moisture excess during most years. Excess water leaves a site by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized surface flow, or deep seepage. Annual losses due to deep seepage, or percolation of water to confined aquifer systems, are usually small and are not considered a significant loss pathway for excess water. Although groundwater flow can be significant in some systems, most excess water is lost via surface and shallow subsurface flow. Table 17.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site vs. Long -term Averages St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Month Observed 2012 Monthly Precipitation (in) WETS Table Average Monthly Precipitation (in) Deviation of Observed from Average (in) January 2.44 4.35 -1.91 February 2.66 3.05 -0.39 March 3.12 4.20 -1.08 April 2.49 3.27 -0.78 May 5.86 4.18 1.68 June 1.19 4.75 -3.56 July 5.57 5.83 -0.26 August 7.67 6.45 122 September 3.99 4.58 -0.59 October 4.19 3.08 1.11 November 0.43 2.87 -2.44 December 4.54 3.40 1.14 Sum 44.15 50.01 -5.86 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -15 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 17.5.4 Hydrological Characterization The presence of hydric soils over the project site is evidence that the site historically supported a wetland ecosystem. Like other rural areas in the state, drainage patterns on -site were historically altered to maximize the availability of arable lands or lands to support livestock. Man -made drainage patterns were added to further drain wetland complexes on -site. Evidence of these ditches still exist today and exert varying degrees of influence on water table hydrology. A total of five pre- restoration groundwater monitoring wells are installed on the Site (see Figure 17.5 for well locations). Three wells (SCAW1, SCAW2 and SCAW3) are installed along UT2 and two wells (SCAW4 and SCAW5) are installed along UT3. The five monitoring wells are InfinitiesTM automated pressure transducers and record groundwater levels four times per day. All wells were installed within 50 feet of the existing ditches. Groundwater well data were collected from April 2012 through May 2013, and data for all wells are presented in Figure 17.6. According to the observed well data, groundwater levels on the Site (SCAW 1 - SCAW5) remained mostly below the existing ground surface during the dormant and growing seasons. The pre- restoration well data indicate that all five monitoring wells did experience variable fluctuations of groundwater levels during and after measurable rain events. After data observations were completed, these fluctuations were noted to be attributed to a deeper water table where even minor rainfall inputs have a significant impact on the groundwater levels, which cause the wells to rise and fall promptly back to pre -storm levels. These sensitive reactions to rain events indicate that local groundwater levels are too deep and have relatively infrequent access to ground surface interaction. It was also noted, during a storm event from May 29 through May 30, 2012 approximately 3.55 inches of rain fell in the Bath, NC area (reference gauge). According to the on -site well data following this event, groundwater levels in SCAW2 and SCAW5 exceeded the ground surface by 1.9 inches and 10.8 inches, respectively. It was also noted that the three remaining monitoring wells also recorded an increase in groundwater levels during this storm event, however, the well data indicate that water levels in wells SCAW1, SCAW3 and SCAW4 did not exceed the ground surface. According to the well data for SCAW 1 located on UT2, the data logger recorded water levels throughout the 2012 growing season mostly below 12 inches from the ground surface. During the 2012 dormant season when groundwater levels are normally highest, the SCAW 1 well data were shown to be below 12 inches from the ground surface from August 2012 until February 2013. Well data recorded in wells SCAW2 and SCAW3 were found to be similar to well SCAW 1, with the exception that these wells exhibited higher groundwater levels throughout the 2012 growing season, but also displayed a relatively dry dormant season. According to the well data for SCAW4 located on UT3, the data logger recorded water levels throughout the 2012 growing season mostly below 12 inches from the ground surface. During the 2012 dormant season when groundwater levels are normally highest, the SCAW4 data logger recorded groundwater levels to be below 12 inches from the ground surface from August 2012 through December 2012. Groundwater data recorded in well SCAW5 exhibited higher levels throughout the 2012 growing season, but also displayed a somewhat dry dormant season. In general, the wells exhibited similar trends in water table depth throughout the pre- restoration monitoring period that reflect seasonal changes in rainfall as well the interaction between the disturbed stream and man -made drainage ways on -site. Average water table levels were at their lowest between September 2012 and December 2012 when rainfall was average to below average and evapotranspiration rates began to decrease. Water table levels were observed to have spiked in MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -16 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT response to significant rainfall events or smaller events that occurred over multiple days. The channelization of the existing streams has kept ground water levels deep in the upstream area of UT2 and UT3, as is demonstrated in the upstream well data. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -17 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.5 Locations of Pre - restoration Monitoring Wells MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -18 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.6 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 1 -3 Compared to Local Rainfall (April 2012 through January 2013) St. Clair Water Levels Vs. Rain (UT2) 4112012 5/1/2012 5(3112012 613012012 71302(112 &2912012 90812012 10262012 11/2712012 12127!2012 1!2612013 22512013 32712013 42612013 5(282013 0 1 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT -111 AMA� MM11MMI 'MIMMI 'LIU, will M k IWIV Ell Oil ision MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -23 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.7 Hydrographs of the Groundwater Monitoring Wells 4 -5 Compared to Local Rainfall (April 2012 through January 2013) St. Clair Water Levels Vs. Rain (UT3) 4/1/2012 5/112012 5131/'012 6!30!2012 713IY2012 3+2912012 912012012 1012812012 1112712012 12/27/2012 1/292013 212512013 312712013 4126/2013 5/26/2013 F 0 - 1 c 2 – 3 — 4 10.0 - C d 0.0- u (0 00 d Elm 9 C 7 O a 20.0 - 0 C -30.0 - 0 d w -40.0 - -50.0 - Date MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -24 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT –FINAL DRAFT 17.5.5 Soil Characterization Soils at the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Beaufort County. The areas proposed for wetland restoration are mapped as hydric soils and are all mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam. Most of UT2 is underlain by Tomotley and Roanoke fine sandy loams, which are classified as nearly level, poorly drained soils that are found on depressions on stream and marine terraces and flats on marine terraces. Most of UT3 is also underlain by Tomotley fine sandy loam. There are also small fringe areas of Hyde loam and Augusta fine sandy loam. Figure 2.3 shows soil conditions throughout the project area and the Soil Series are shown on Table 17.5. Table 17.5 NRCS Soil Series (Beaufort County Soil Survey, NRCS, 1995) St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Soil Name Landform Hydric Soil Description Tomotley fine sandy Depressions on stream terraces, Poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine alluvial loam flats on marine terraces Yes sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 Permeability is moderate. Roanoke fine sandy Broad flats in shallow Poorly drained soils formed in loamy and clayey loam depressions on stream terraces Yes marine and fluvial sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 /°. Permeability is slow. Marine terraces and in shallow Very poorly drained soils formed in loamy marine Hyde loam depressions Yes and fluvial sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 1 %. Permeability is moderately slow. Augusta fine sandy Depressions on marine terraces, Somewhat poorly drained soils formed in loamy loam flats on marine terraces Yes marine and fluvial sediments. Slope ranges from 0 to 2 %. Permeability is moderate. To further investigate the soil conditions present on the site, Baker contracted with the Catena Group, LLC to perform a detailed soils evaluation of the site to determine the depth of hydric soil conditions and the presence of buried hydric soil layers in the project area. A licensed soil scientist conducted a hydric soils investigation on February 4, 2011 (see Section 19, Appendix E). The report findings indicate the presence of hydric soils throughout the site, based on boring information and presence of at least one hydric indicator and observed inclusions. 17.5.6 Plant Community Characterization Currently the majority of the proposed wetland restoration area is comprised of planted Loblolly pine timber (Pinus taeda). Historically, the project areas have been used as agriculture lands and timber lands. Woody shrub and vine species include Blackberry (Rubus spp.), Greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and Muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia). Herbaceous species consist of Dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and Netted chainfern (Woodwardia areolata). 17.6 Reference Wetlands 17.6.1 Wetland Descriptions Two existing wetland and stream systems that are representative of the system to be restored at the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site were identified. The sites fall within the same climatic, physiographic, and ecological region as the restoration site. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -0 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT The first reference site (on -site reference wetland) is located downstream or UT3 along the previously identified jurisdictional wetland. (see Figure 17.10). The reference site is an example of a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp," as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the floodplains of small blackwater or brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine — intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow. Just downstream of the area proposed for the reference wetland (approximately 400 feet) is National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapped wetlands along the same system. The reference site has experienced disturbances in the past, primarily due to timber harvest; however, cutting of timber occurred long ago, and a mature canopy of vegetation exists across the site, especially surrounding the stream channel itself. Visual evidence also suggests that the hydrology of the site was minimally affected by timber harvest. Two locations within the reference site were chosen to serve as reference monitoring comparisons for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project. Both sites are located along the downstream wooded wetland floodplain section of UT3 (see Figure 17.10). This reference site was chosen to represent reference hydrologic conditions for the riparian wetland areas that will be restored adjacent to the restored headwater streams. The second reference site (Back Creek reference wetland) is located approximately 2.4 miles from the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site along wooded wetland floodplain areas of the South Prong of Back Creek. This reference site was chosen to represent reference hydrologic condition for the riparian wetland areas that will be restored adjacent to UT2 and UT3 on the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site. This reference site is also an example of a "Coastal Plain small stream swamp," as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). These systems exist as the floodplains of small blackwater or brownwater streams in which separate fluvial features and associated vegetation are too small or poorly developed to distinguish. Hydrology of these systems is palustrine — intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded. Stream flows tend to be highly variable, with floods of short duration, and periods of very low flow. Reference wells installed at this site fall inside the NWI wetland boundary. This reference site has also been timbered in the distant past; however, a mature canopy exists on the site. Visual evidence also suggests that the hydrology of the site was minimally affected by timber harvest. Two groundwater monitoring wells were installed in this reference wetland in 2008. The wells were installed in locations to show a range of ground water levels throughout the wetland. The following sections describe the soils, hydrology, and vegetation for each of these sites. 17.6.2 Hydrological Characterization Both reference sites classify as jurisdictional wetlands, utilizing criteria identified in the USACE 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual. These criteria include the FAC- Neutral Test, oxidized root channels, and local soil survey data. Climatic conditions of the reference site are the same as those described for the project site (Section 17.5.3). Site hydrology for the on -site reference wetland is controlled primarily by UT3 that flows through the site and site hydrology for the Back Creek reference wetland is controlled primarily by the South Prong of Back Creek that also flows through the reference wetland site. Due to the shallow, stable condition of the streams through the sites, high water table conditions are maintained across the active floodplain for prolonged hydroperiods. Ground water monitoring wells will be installed in the on -site reference wetland in April 2013. This data and data from the Back Creek reference site will be used to compare monitoring results of the restored wetland areas along UT2 and UT3. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Ground water monitoring wells were installed in the Back Creek reference wetland in 2008. Baker has collected five years (2008 through 2012) of water table hydrology data. Water table monitoring wells (RDS WL40 logging units) were installed along the South Prong of Back Creek. Table 17.6 summarizes the hydrologic conditions observed at each of the two well locations. As expected, the data indicate that the two monitored locations vary in regards to their hydrologic wetness. Reference Well 1 was installed near the wetland boundary while Reference Well 2 was installed well within wetland boundary. At the Reference Well 1 area, hydroperiods (defined as a consecutive period of saturation within the growing season, expressed as a percentage of the growing season) ranged from 5.7 percent to 23 percent for the data collected. For the Reference Well 2 area, hydroperiods ranged from 5.7 percent to 35.8 percent with the years of 2009 through 2011 showing a greater difference in hydroperiods. The hydroperiods documented for both reference wells area are similar to those that have been collected from other, similar reference systems in the Coastal Plain. Table 17.6 Reference Wetland Hydrologic Parameters - Back Creek Site St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Percentage of Most Consecutive Cumulative Number of Gauge ID Consecutive Days inches from Days Meeting Days Meeting Instances Meeting Drought Conditions s During Growing Season <12 Criteria2 Criteria3 Ground Surfacer Criteria 2008 Reference Well 1 5.7% 16 57 9 16.7% Normal 21.4% Abnormally Dry 57.1% Moderate Drought Reference Well 5.7% 16 71 12 4.8% Severe Drought 2009 Reference Well 1 8.9% 25 97 19 45.2% Normal 52.4% Abnormally Dry Reference Well 2 10.6% 30 178 11 2.4% Moderate Drought 2010 Reference Well 1 13.5% 38 47 2 52.4% Normal 38.1% Abnormally Dry Reference Well 2 16.7% 47 97 4 9.5% Moderate Drought 2011 Reference Well 1 11.0% 31 114 11 31.4% Normal 20.0% Abnormally Dry 11.4% Moderate Drought Reference Well 2 0 35.8 /0 101 164 2 37.1% Severe Drought 2012 23.0% (includes Reference Well 1 data gap of 26 65 175 12 61.0% Normal days) in 2012 22.0% Abnormally Dry 17.1% Moderate Drought Reference Well 2 23.4% 66 187 9 Notes: 'Indicates the percentage of most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water 12 MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -2 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT inches or less from the soil surface. 2Indicates the most consecutive number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches less from the soil surface. 'Indicates the cumulative number of days within the monitored growing season with a water table 12 inches or less from the soil surface. 4Indicates the number of instances within the monitored growing season when the water table rose to 12 Inches or less from the soil surface. 'Drought conditions determined from the NCDENR Division of Water Resources Drought Monitor History season for Beaufort County is from February 28 to December 6 and is 282 17.6.3 Soil Characterization The soils found within the on -site reference wetland are mapped primarily of Augusta and Tomotley fine sandy loams. As described in Section 17.5.5, Augusta fine sandy loam soils are classified as hydric, sandy loam, somewhat poorly drained, and formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments. Tomotely fine sandy loam soils are classified as hydric, sandy loam, poorly drained, and formed in loamy marine alluvial sediments. The soils found within the Back Creek reference wetland are mapped as Augusta fine sandy loam. As described previously, soils are classified as hydric, sandy loam, somewhat poorly drained, and formed in loamy marine and fluvial sediments The areas along UT2 and UT3 on the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project site proposed for wetland restoration are also mapped as Tomotley fine sandy loam. 17.6.4 Plant Community Characterization Both reference wetland sites exhibit similar vegetation communities. Since both sites have been timbered in the past, both successional species and climax species are present. Canopy species include Sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Red maple (Acer rubrum), Green Ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), Swamp Tupelo (Nyssa sylvatica) and various oaks (Quercus spp.) The sub -canopy of the wetland system is often an expression of the native seed bank. Understory species primarily consist of Giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), Wax myrtle (Morella cerifera), Ironwood (Carpinus carohniana), Cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), Fetterbush (Lyonia lucida), and Greenbrier (Smilax spp.). The reference sites are comprised of greater than 50 percent facultative or wetter species, and therefore meet the hydrophytic vegetation requirement. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -3 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Figure 17.8 Reference Wetlands Location Map MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT A Reference Wetland Location 264 Jv Jackson S a m Rd �G Sr Chair ¢a `�iv 99 _ Ci�ek Bath Ao - Back Creek Project Location Savan On Site 0 0 CD m 92 306 A Pamlico River MOM SO., En i— lna N°. - • P ""° "9483 51° ,. r' tem 0 3,000 6,000 Fe et N n Figure 17.8 Reference Wetlands Location Map tW!- N St. Clair Creek Site MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -4 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 17.7 Restoration of Wetland Hydrology The project area is currently drained by the channelized streams UT2 and UT3 along with multiple other drainage ditches. To improve wetland hydrology functions to the site, existing channels will be filled up to the floodplain elevation thereby restoring its historical connection and improve flow dynamics between the stream and wetland complex. Fill material will be generated on -site from the excavation necessary to restore the headwater valleys. The abandoned sections of channelized stream will be fully to partially filled to eliminate the drainage effect caused by these features. Likewise, any drain tiles and spoil piles within the fields will be excavated and removed where possible to disrupt drainage from the field. When complete filling of the stream and ditches is not possible, ditch plugs will be installed from compacted earth. Ditch plugs will also be used in locations where the restored stream channel will cross the existing stream channel Baker has used these practices on numerous other projects with excellent results. Some sections of existing channel may be only partially filled depending on the amount of fill material that can be produced. These partially filled areas will be discontinuous and will mimic small floodplain pools or tree throws within the wetland areas that will add to the diversity of habitat on the project site. Grading activities will focus on restoring pre- disturbance valley topography by removing any bedding, field crowns, surface drains, spoil piles, or swales that were installed during conversion of the land for agriculture and silviculture. In general, grading activities will be minor, with the primary goal of filling the drainage features on the site back to natural ground elevations and redefining the relic headwater valley. The topography of the restored site will be patterned after natural riparian wetland reference sites, and will include the restoration of minor depressions that promote diversity of hydrologic conditions and habitats common to natural wetland areas. These techniques will be instrumental to the restoration of site hydrology by promoting surface ponding and infiltration, decreasing drainage capacity, and imposing higher water table conditions across the site. In order to improve drainage and increase agricultural production, farmed wetland soils are often graded to a smooth surface and crowned to enhance runoff (Lilly, 1981). Wetland microtopography contributes to the properties of forest soils and to the diversity and patterns of plant communities (Lutz, 1940; Stephens, 1956; Bratton, 1976; Ehmfeld, 1995). The restoration design for the wetland is based on a targeted "Coastal Plain small stream swamp" riparian wetland type, as identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Hydrology of this system will be palustrine, "intermittently, temporarily, or seasonally flooded ". The revegetation plan for the overall riparian system will native riparian communities identified by Schafale and Weakley (1990) that include "Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp" and "Coastal Plain Bottomland Hardwood ". 17.7.1 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings The vegetative components of this project include headwater valley, riparian buffer, and riparian wetland. All areas within the conservation easement including the headwater valleys, riparian wetland, and riparian buffer will planted with the same mix of trees, shrubs and herbaceous vegetation as shown on the project revegetation plan sheets (Section 18, Appendix D). The small area of successional hard wood trees on the left bank at the top of UT3 will be supplementally planted due to the presence of some mature native vegetation. Bare -root trees will be planted within the conservation easement. A minimum 50 -foot buffer will be established along both sides of the headwater stream centerline (100-foot total minimum width) for all of the proposed stream reaches within the project boundary. In many areas, the buffer width will be in MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -5 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT excess of 50 feet along one or both sides of the stream centerline (more than 100 -foot total width) and will encompass adjacent wetland restoration areas. In general, bare -root vegetation will be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between the last week of November and the third week of March. Selected species for woody revegetation planting are presented in Table 17.7. Tree species selected for restoration areas will be tolerant of flooding with varying degrees of tolerance. Weakly tolerant species are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in which the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. Specific planting areas will be determined based on these comparisons, and planted species will be matched according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area. Once trees are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Soils across the site will be prepared by sufficiently disking and /or loosened prior to planting. Trees will be planted by manual labor using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and down without ".1- rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent roots from drying out. Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 17.8 lists the species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for headwater stream valley, buffer, and wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (cereal rye or browntop millet) to allow for application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value, the permanent seed mixture specified will be applied to all disturbed within the conservation easement. The species provided are deep- rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored streams and in wetlands. Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These areas include access roads, filled ditches, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is applied from September through March, cereal rye will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre. If applied from April through August, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per acre. Table 17.7 Proposed Bare -Root Species St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Botanical Name Common Name % Planted by Wetland Tolerance Species Tree Species 8' X 8" spacing - 408 stems /Acre Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash 6% FACW Nyssa sylvatica var. biflora Swamp Tupelo 9% FACW+ Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 12% FACW- Quercus laurifolia Laurel Oak 9% FACW MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -6 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Quercus lyrata Overcup Oak 6% OBL Quercus phellos Willow Oak 6% FACW - Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 6% OBL Ulmus americana American Elm 6% FACW Understory Species 8' x 8' spacing - 272 stems /Acre Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush 4% FACW Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 4% FAC Cyrilla racemifora Titi 6% FACW Magnolia virginiana Sweetbay Magnolia 6% FAC - Persea palustris Swamp Bay 4% FACW Leucothoe racemosa Swamp Doghobble 6% FACW Lyonia lucida Fetterbush 6% FACW Itea virginica Virginia Sweetspire 4% FACW+ Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock. Table 17.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture St. Clair Creek Restoration Project Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan - EEP Project No. 95015 Botanical Name Common Name % Planted by Species Density (lbs /ac) Wetland Tolerance Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% 1.75 FAC Andropogon glomeratus Bushy blue stem 10% 1.75 FACW+ Carex lupulina Hop sedge 10% 1.0 OBL Carex vulpinoidea Fox sedge 10% 1.0 OBL Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 10% 1.75 FAC Juncus effusus Soft rush 15% 1.75 FACW+ Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 10% 1.5 FAC+ Polygonum pennsylvanicum Smartweed 5% 1.5 FACW Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem 10% 1.5 FACU Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 10% 1.5 FACU MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -7 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT Total 100% 15 Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior to the procurement of plant stock. 17.8 Site Construction 17.8.1 Construction Sequence A general construction sequence is provided below and included on the plan set for the St. Clair Creek Restoration Project. 1. Prior to beginning any land disturbing activities, notification and approval must be granted from NCDENR Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section, US Army Corp of Engineers, and NC Division of Water Quality. 2. The Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1. 800.632.4949) before any excavation. 3. The Contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site using the construction entrances (shown on the plans) along the farm roads off of Peoples Road. Two temporary gravel construction entrances will be installed. 4. The Contractor will utilize existing farm roads and ditch crossings to the extent possible. Any new ditch crossings to be installed will consist of temporary wood mats and shall be approved by the Engineer prior to installation. 5. Contractor will store all equipment and materials in staging /stockpile areas as shown on the plans. 6. Silt fence will be installed in locations shown on the plans prior to beginning any land disturbing activities in that area. 7. Contractor shall only clear and grub within the limits of disturbance and only to the extent necessary for construction. 8. Contractor shall begin construction on UT2 by first installing a temporary rock dam at approximate station 37 +00. 9. Contractor shall then dewater the area upstream of the temporary rock dam using the typical pump around operation as shown in the details. 10. Contractor shall then install the proposed culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road. 11. Contractor shall then begin valley grading at the downstream end of UT2 and work up valley disturbing no more area than can be stabilized in one day. Contractor shall utilize pump around operation as necessary in this area and continue grading to approximate station 27 +50. 12. Contractor shall then install ditch plug 41 at the upstream end of UT2 to divert water around the work area. 13. Contractor shall continue grading activities working upstream filling ditches and dewatering as necessary until approximate station 13 +00. 14. Contractor shall then utilize pump around operations as necessary to complete grading activities. 15. Immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction specifications. The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched. After the new graded valley has been constructed, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then plug and fill the remaining ditches and turn water into the new graded valley. 16. Contractor shall then begin construction on UT3 by installing ditch plug 42 as shown on the plans. This ditch plug is temporary and will be used to divert flow around the work area. 17. Then the Contractor shall grade the high area as shown at approximate station 21 +40. 18. Next, the Contractor shall install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -8 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 19. Contractor shall then begin grading the valley and filling ditches as shown on the plans working upstream dewatering as necessary to approximate station 10 +50. 20. Immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction specifications. The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched. After the new graded valley has been constructed, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then install ditch plug 43, plug and fill the remaining ditches, remove ditch plug 42, and turn water into the new graded valley. 21. Any excess excavated material shall be used to elevate the existing farm roads as directed by the Engineer. 22. All areas should be seeded and mulched prior leaving the project reach. Remove all temporary stream crossings. All waste material must be removed from the project site. 23. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation, according to planting details and specifications. Reforestation shall be completed at the appropriate time of the year. 24. The Contractor shall treat areas of invasive species within the conservation easement boundary. 25. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site. 17.8.2 Other Construction Elements Ditch Plug / Channel Block A compacted earth plug will be installed by filling the existing ditch to prevent subsurface flows and improve site hydrology. The fill material used for ditch plugs shall come from a nearby borrow area and be free of debris, rocks, trash, etc. and shall consist of compactable soil material. Transplants Vegetation transplants will be identified before starting construction as viable candidates (species and size) for uprooting and relocation. Areas that must be cleared will maximize the harvesting of transplants; transplants will be taken from other areas as suitable to enhance the rapid development of vegetative growth along the constructed channel. Emer2ency Overflow Stabilized emergency overflows will be constructed along the existing farm roads in the vicinities of the proposed culverts to allow large storm flows to overtop the farm roads in a stabilized concentrated area to prevent damage to the farm roads. MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 17 -9 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT 18.0 APPENDIX D - PROJECT PLAN SHEETS MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 18 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - FINAL DRAFT ti 1*0 N • Jackson smmpmp PROJECT / AREA) d� 00 River VICINITY MAP NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM ST. CLAIR CREED RESTORATION PROJECT LOCATION: BEA UFORT COUNTY OFF OF PEOPLES ROAD NEAR BATH, NC TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION INDEX OF SHEETS 1—TITLE SHEET 1 -A STREAM CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS GENERAL NOTES, STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS 1 -B NCDOT CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS 2 - 2 -A DETAILS 3—CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE 4 -7 PLAN VIEW 8 -9 PROFILE VIEW 10 - 11 REVEGETATION PLAN EC -1 - EC -6 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY . -- UT2 STA. 11 +45.78 J SHEET 4 GRAPHIC SCALES PROJECT DATA 40 20 0 40 80 UT2 UT3 i I PLANS DESIGN REACH LENGTH — 2,494 1,278 FEET 40 2.0 0 40 $0 PROPOSED STREAM CREDITS = 2,133 1,141 SMU PROPOSED RIPARIAN WETLAND CREDITS = 1.1 1.7 WMU PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA = 11.6 5.9 ACRES x ' %� S UT 2 SHEET 6 1\ IffAM u[R RIIWiLT Nvawo N6 T NC 1251111 I 2- 11 \��11tIIla�7 _~ C. •F O ?'Q SEA r;y _ 03 1 0A co /NCO •' ••��`\ UT 3 STA. 10 +50.00 V, �7�� 1 `• ` END CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY UT3 STA. 18 +50.00 i I a PREPARED FOR THE OFFICE OF Y ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM 217 WEST JONES STREET Iaosystem RALEIGH, NC 27603 PROGRAM CONTACT:• HEATHER SMITH PROJECr %"AGER UT 2 STA. 30 +48.00 PREPARED IN = OFFICE OF. 8000 111,1201 yPartway,lnoe906 � Cary, NORTH CAA[AIHA Thy IB F a� —9 463.10SO U «. 4 : :-19a ' i FALL 2013 JACOB BYERS, PE LEfil I NG OATH: PROJECT ENGINEER UT 3 1 \ 1 V\ I M 00 a Z PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO Ka VSR FOR CONSTRUCTION STREAM REALM CO VE 11 IO A Ls SYMBOLS GENE' RAL NOTES S .. PROJECT ENGINEER Andropogon gerardii SUEERCEDES SHEET 1H FAC Approx. Number Bushy blue stem 10% ROOT WAD — ®— SAFETY FENCE 1. WORK IS BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PLAN. PRELIMINARY PLANS Common Name by Species Acre Wetland Tolerance THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD MAKE ALL REASONABLE EFFORTS TO REDUCE W NW USE ran WN&MUnoN C, LOG J -HOOK —TF— TAPE FENCE SEDIMENT LOSS AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE 9% a FACW+ Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. 81 ® LOG VANE —FP— 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN 2. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO BEGIN FALL 2013. FACW ® LOG WEIR 6% CONSERVATION EASEMENT 3, CONTRACTOR SHOULD CALL NORTH CAROLINA "ONE- CALL" BEFORE Quercus phellos Willow Oak 6% 41 FACW - EXCAVATION STARTS. (1 -800- 632 -4949) Michael Baker Engineering rnc. 6% 41 OBL Ulmus americans American Elm - BOW NCR" PoROUNSeta WO Cery� NORTH CAROUxA 2751a 41 LOG CROSS VANE — — — — — EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR 60% � � Foe 81e4A151W� Lkeivsa r F.iow FOOT BRIDGE EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR i TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING ® TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING of Stems Per TREE REMOVAL Botanical Name Common Name by Species Acre ' Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush '� � 27 LOG STEP POOL Carpinus caroliniana TREE PROTECTION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS � QQ FAC Cynlla racemiffora Titi 6% 41 /S%S /)O'`�y��i Magnolia virginiana Sweotboy Magnolia 6% CHANNEL BLOCK FAC - persea palusfris Swamp Bay 4% 27 FACW Leucothoe racemosa = U 3 UJ 6e/ 41 ® TRANSPLANTS EROSIONAND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUALS MARCH 2009 '• F 6% 41 FACW ltea virginica Virginia Sweetspire. l 27 FACW+ CHANNEL FILL 40% •G • `t�'4�`` 6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 6.62 SILT FENCE 6.70 TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING * *NOTE: ALL ITEMS ABOVE MAY NOT BE USED ON THIS PROJECT VEGETATION SELECTION The following table lists the vegetation selection for the project site. Total planting area is approximately 17.5 acres. Exact placement of species shall be determined in the field and based on apparent wetness of planting locations and per the %egetation specialist. The entire easement area shall be planted. All bare -root species shall be planted at a density of 680 stems per acre at an 8'x8' spacing. Tree Species Common Name Percent Planted by Species Wetland Tolerance Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% FAC Approx. Number Bushy blue stem 10% FACW+ Percent Planted of Stems Per 10% Botanical Name Common Name by Species Acre Wetland Tolerance Fraxfnus pennsylvanica Green Ash 6% 41 FACW Nyssa sylvalica var, biffora Swamp Tupelo 9% 61 FACW+ Quercus michauxii Swamp Chestnut Oak 121/. 81 FACW - Quercus aawifolia Laurel Oak 9% 61 FACW Quercus lyrata Otiercup Oak 6% 41 OBL Quercus phellos Willow Oak 6% 41 FACW - Taxodium distichum Bald Cypress 6% 41 OBL Ulmus americans American Elm 6 °A 41 FACW Total 60% 408 Understory Species Approx. Number Percent Planted of Stems Per Botanical Name Common Name by Species Acre Wetland Tolerance Clethra alnifolia Sweet Pepperbush 4% 27 FACW Carpinus caroliniana Ironwood 4% 27 FAC Cynlla racemiffora Titi 6% 41 FACW Magnolia virginiana Sweotboy Magnolia 6% 41 FAC - persea palusfris Swamp Bay 4% 27 FACW Leucothoe racemosa Swamp Uoghobble 6e/ 41 FACW Lyonia lucide Fetterbush 6% 41 FACW ltea virginica Virginia Sweetspire. 4% 27 FACW+ Total 40% 272 i IX Nf tir Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures for the restoration site shall be planted throughout the fioodplain, the graded valley and buffer areas. Permanent herbaceous seed mixtures shall be applied with temporary seed, as defined in the construction specifications. Permanent seed shall be applied at a rate of 1.5 rbslacre. Permanent Seed Botanical Name Common Name Percent Planted by Species Wetland Tolerance Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% FAC Andropogon gfomerafus Bushy blue stem 10% FACW+ Caroxlupulina Hop sedge 10% OBL Carox vulpinoidea Fox sedge 10% OBL Flymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 10% FAG Juncus effusus Soft rush 15% FACW+ Panicum virgatum Syrichgress 10% FAC+ Polygonum pensyivawcum Smartweed 5% FACW Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem 10% FACU Sorghaslmrn nufans Indiangrass 10% FACU Total 100% The following table lists temporary seed species for the project site. Botanical Name Common Name Rate Cates Secale cereal Cereal Rye 130 fbslacre September to March Panicum ramosum Browntop Millet 40 Ibslacre April to August b m a N a a 'n 0 r-¢ *S.U.E = SUBSURFACE UTILITY ENGINEER ROADS & RELATED ITEMS Edge of Pavement ----------------------- - - - - -- — — — - Curb------------------------------------- - - - - -- — — — - Prop. Slope Stakes Cut --------- --- ------ - -- - -- C Prop. Slope Stakes Fill ........................ �.- Prop. Woven Wire Fence . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . .... $e Prop. Chain Link Fence - - - - - - - - - - - El E Prop. Barbed Wire Fence ----- ------- - - - - - - _ 0 0 Prop. Wheelchair Ramp ---------------- - - - - -- Curb Cut for Future Wheelchair Ramp - - - cr Exist. Guardrail_ FX� Prop. Guardrail -------------------------------- - x --x —x- Equality Symbol - -- -- ............. -- ,,,- -,,, -- Pavement Removal . . ..................... . . . .. . RIGHT OF WAY -- FO - -FO- Baseline Control Point ..... - - -. - - - - . - - - - - Existing Right of Way Marker .................. Q Exist. Right of Way Line w/Marker _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ — - Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed Lu R/W Marker (Iron Pin & Cap) .. ........ . ... Prop. Right of Way Line with Proposed (Concrete or Granite) R/W Marker Exist. Control of Access Line ................... ��n1 Pole with Base ...... O Prop. Control of Access Line --- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Exist. Easement Line ...................... _ _ -E- - - - Prop. Temp. Construction Easement Line .. - -. E Prop, Temp. Drainage Easement Line ......... ,DE Prop. Perm. Drainage Easement Line ......... PW HYDROLOGY • Stream or Body of Water .................... + River Basin Buffer .............................. REM Flow Arrow ------------------------------ - - - - -- .& Disappearing Stream ...... ...... ........... . ... �.- Spring ----- __ ----------- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- Qom, Swamp Marsh- ....................... -6- Shoreline ... . ----------- - - - - -- --- - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - Falls, Rapids-- - - - - -- ----------- - - - - -- - -, - - Prop Lateral, Tail, Head Ditches ..... . . . . . . . . . — ?un -aun- U,G TV Cable Hand Hold ............... . . . . . FX� STRUCTURES MAJ O R Bridge, Tunnel, or Box Culvert .... . . . . . . . . . . . coRC Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall .. ..................... ...... )CONC wwC i lC�1lD STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA .�` '%.. S816% SEALS p• a r—; CONVENTIONAL SYM13OL&=-- ILDINGS & OTHER CULTURE iv, i. Head & End Wall - .-- _----- .--- _- - - - - -. coN%s Pipe Culvert ----------------------------- - - - - -- Footbridge.. . ..... ............. ............... r - - - - - - < Drainage Boxes . ........................ ....... F1 CB Paved Ditch Gutter ................ — — — - UTILITIES Exist. Pole ------ ------------------------- - - - - -- • Exist. Power Pole ......................... ...... + Prop. Power Pole ------------------------- - - - - -- d Exist. Telephone Pole ....... ... ....... .. ....... .& Prop. Telephone Pale .......... ......... ....... a- Exist. Joint Use Pole -- -- -------------- ---- - - - - -- .y., Prop. Joint Use Pole _________ __ __ ______ __ _______ -6- Telephone Pedestal _ _______ ____ ______ ____ __ ____ ID USG Telephone Cable Hand Hold ..... _ _ .... - Cable TV Pedestal ....... ............ ...... . ... — ?un -aun- U,G TV Cable Hand Hold ............... . . . . . — ,,,—,,,- LbG Power Cable Hand Hold ........... . . .. .. - x --x —x- Hydrant----------------------------------------- -- ,,,- -,,, -- Satellite Dish-- --------- - - - - -- Yl Exist. Water Valve .......... .......... ... . .. .... -- FO - -FO- Sewer Clean Out..-.... --- ..____________ 0 Power Manhole ------ -------------------- m Telephone Booth--- ________ ...... ... . . .... .fru+ Cellular Telephone Tower.. ... ..... . . .... Lu Water Manhole...... ------- - - - - -- Light Pole ---- - - - - -- ---- - - - - -- H -Frame Pole---------------------------- - - - - -- Power Line Tower ... .. ....... .. ...... ... Pole with Base ...... O Gas Valve ... ------ - - - - -- 0 GasMeter --- - - - - -- ---------- - - - - -- -- - - - - -- Telephone Manhole ......... .... ....... ........ Or Power Transformer .. ....... .......... ....... . .. 0 Sanitary Sewer Manhole ...... ..... ... ......... Storm Sewer Manhole ......... . . ............. G Tank; Water, Gas, Oil ................. ..... . .. Water Tank With Legs ............ ..... ........ O Traffic Signal Junction Box ............... . . . ... Fiber Optic Splice Box ------------------- ---- - - Television or Radio Tower .............. . . ..... Utility Power Line Connects to Traffic Signal Lines Cut Into the Pavement. - - ........ '.'r' E , •. gam. .. . Recorded Water Line /fie -- Designated Water Line (S.U.E. *) .............. ��ll a Sanitary Sewer . ........................... . . .. — ss —ss- Recorded Sanitary Sewer Force Main ...... — ass —FSS- Designated Sanitary Sewer Force Main(S.U.5.*)— FSS —FSS Recorded Gas Line Designated Gas Line (S.U.E. *) - - - _ - _ - ..... _ _ ___G_ --r_ _ Storm Sewer -------------- - - - - -- - - - - - - -- -- —s —s- Recorded Power Line - - - -. . ..... . . ........ ��- Designated Power Line (S.U.E. *) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ----- Recorded Telephone Cable .................. —, —,- Designated Telephone Cable (S.U.E. *) .. _ . _ . _ R Recorded LVG Telephone Conduit ....... — rc —tc- Designated LVG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E. *) - Unknown Utility (S.U.E. *) ......... ...... . .. — ?un -aun- Recorded Television Cable - -------- --- - - _ — ,,,—,,,- Designated Television Cable (S.U.E. *) - x --x —x- ... - - -- -- ,,,- -,,, -- Recorded Fiber Optics Cable ............... — FO —FO- Designated Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E. *) -- FO - -FO- Exist. Water Meter -------------------- - - - - -- 0 LPG Test Hole ( S.U.E. *) ---- ----- -- -- --- - - - - - -- m Abandoned According to Ll G Record _ _ _ - . _ _ - .fru+ End of Information Lu BOUNDARIES & PROPERTIES State Line ------------------ - - - - -- - - - - -- County Line r� Township Line --------------------------- ------ - - - - - -- City Line ---------------------------------------- ----- Reservation Line . ................ ........... . . .. _. -- —_-- Property Line --------------------- - --- ---- ------ Property Line Symbol .................... ... ... R Exist. Iron Pin .................. E� Property Corner . ............ ..... ........... . .. =�Z3 Property Monument ... ........... .... .... . .. ... A Property Number--- - - - - -- - - - -- -- Parcel Number .. ................. ...... .. ... . .. 123 L°J Fence Line ........ ...... . . .. - x --x —x- Existing Wetland Boundaries-- - -- - -- -- ---- ww a isaw — _wLB— _ High Quality Wetland Boundary - - - - - - -- - -- --Ha wre` Medium Quality Wetland Boundaries . - .. - - .. —aa wLB-- Low Quality Wetland Boundaries . . . ... . . . .... —Lo wLB- Proposed Wetland Boundaries ................ wee Existing Endangered Animal Boundaries ...... .—. - EAB — - Existing Endangered Plant Boundaries .....--- — -EPB— - s"ngs -------- ----- -- ------- ----------------- t, Foundations--------------- --------------- - - - - -- r� v Area Outline - - -- - -- - - -- -- N Gate- - - - - -- - --------------- - Gas Pump Vent or WG Tank Cap ............ o Church ---- --- -- - --- r School------------ ----------------- - - - - -- =�Z3 Park- - ----------- - - - - -- — — ] __. Cemetery . . . . ....................... . ^ t Dam Sign--------------- --------- o Well - - - - - - - - - -- w Small Mine ----------------- - - - --- I Swimming Pool -------------------------- - - - - -- TOPOGRAPHY Loose Surface - - - - . - - - - - - - Hard Surface .. ............................... Change in Road Surface ...... ........ .. . . ... ... ........... Curb Right of Way Symbol ......................... R/W GuardPost ------------------------------ - - ---- Cn GP Paved Walk Bridge _ _ - Box Culvert or Tunnel ___ ____ _ ___ __ ` - - - - - - - Ferry ------------------------- - - - - -- --- - - - - -- - - - - - - - Culvert----------- ---------------------- - - - - -- } Footbridge ... - - - - - - - - - .............. -------------- - - - - -- Trail, Footpath - ---- ----- - - - - -- --------- - - - - -- 1 Light House UAW W160IGIIIF'RIA Single Tree - - - - - - - -- ------- ------------- -- - - -- e� Single Shrub ----------- ----------------- - - - - -- o Hedge......................................... Woods Line ------- ----- - - -- Orchard ------- - - - - -- - - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- C?jD0 &jDC? Vineyard F_ vwe raRo RAILROADS Standard Gauge csr rnwravrerur RR Signal Milepost . - - - . YAEASr ]! Switch----------------------------------------- ¢ +roe u n r c c a c 0 m oan Hv N ul N c 0 a c m e 0 W cIn I-d PROJECT REFERENCE NO, I SHEET NO. \ PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION =111b -A PLANTINGS PROJECT ENGINEER NOTES; 1, PLANT BARE ROOT SHRUBS AND TREES TO THE WIDTH OF THE BUFFER AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. 2. ALLOW FOR 6-10 FEET BETWEEN PLANTINGS, DEPENDING ON SIZE. TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION, ROOTMASS, AND SOIL MATERIAL PRELIMINARY PLANS S. LOOSEN COMPACTED SOIL. BO NOT USE FOR CONSMUCI7OM TOP OF STREAMUANK 4. PLANT IN HOLES MADE BY A MATTOCK, DIBBLE, PLANTING BAR, OR OTHER APPROVED MEANS, - - 5. PLANT IN HOLES DEEP AND WIDE ENOUGH TOALLOW THE HOOTS _ TO SPREAD DUT AND DOWN WITHOUT J-ROOTING. TOP OF STREAMBANK - 6. KEEP ROOTS MOIST WHILE DISTRIBUTING OR WAITING TO PLANT - - _ BY MEANS OF WET CANVAS, BURLAP, OR STRAW. ' - 7. HEEL -IN PLANTS IN MOIST SOIL OR SAWDUST IF NOT PROMPTLY PLANTED UPON ARRIVAL TO PROJECT SITE. IRE. - - - SM01.,RegRM MOLIa,AR27516 Cory, NORTH CAROLINA 31516 TRANSPLANTEDVEGETATION , ROOTMASS, AND SOIL 1 MATERIAL r rnoR.: ele.�s3saea Far. ele.<w.slsa - - - BOTTOM OF CHANNEL . - TOE OF BANK \ BOTTOM OF CHANNEL - - - �- — NOTES: CROSS SECTION VIEW OF BARE ROOT PLANTING ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT To BE PLACED WILL - .- - - .- BEGIN EXCAVATION AT THE TOE OF THE BANK • 2. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT USING A FRONT END LOADER. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE ROOT MASS AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE ROOTMASS CAN NOT BE CROSS SECTION VIEW EXCAVATE IN ONE BUCKET LOAD, THE TRANSPLANT LS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE SELECTED. PLANTINGS NOTES' 3. PLACE TRANSPLANT IN THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED SO THAT VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY. 1. WHEN PREPARING THE HOLE FORA POTTED PLANT OR SHRUB 4. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT, 5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED. DIG THE HOLED -12 INCHES LARGER THAN THE DIAMETER OF THE POT AND THE SAME DEPTH AS THE POT, S. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT 2. REMOVE THE PLANT FROM THE POT, LAYTHEPLANTONITSSIDE IF NECESSARY TO REMOVE THE POT. TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION AND ROOTMASS THFYTOUGH. 3. IF THE PLANT IS NOOTBOUND (ROOTS GROWING IN A SPIRAL AROUND THE ROOT BALL), MAKE VERTICAL CUTS WITH A KNIFE TOP OF STRLAM13ANK OR SPADE JUST DEEP ENOUGH TO CUT THE NET OF ROOTS. ALSO MAKE A CRISSCROSS CUT ACROSS THE BOTTOM OF THE BALL PLACE 7F PLANT IN LE. 5. OF TH HOLE WITH - 5. F71_L HALF OF THE HOLE WITH 501E (SAME SOIL REMOVED FOR BACKFILL). - - 6. WATER THE SOIL TO REMOVE AIR POCKETS AND FILL THE REST OF THE HOLE WITH THE REMAINING SOIL. \ / \ / ® TOP OF BANK ® r l` TOE OF BANK - - - - . - BOTTOM OF CHANNEL PLAN VIEW CROSS SECTION VIEW OF CONTAINER PLANTING CHANNEL BLOCK DITCH PLUG NEW CHANNEL TO BE CONSTRUCTED DITCH TO BE PLUGGED NOTE: FLT COMPACT BACKFILL USING ON -SITE HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS. 9 �S, DITCH PLUG CA �•,'''! Q! Ck ANNE L`LOCK . � r \ � a �! \� ��'��E�� •,y i_ PLAN VIEW y. /HIV Q7 SEAk: �•9 ° PLAN VIEW \ UNCOMPACT COMPACTED BACKFILL 1 5 �A MUM '� %` OB • M �� `\ ,• UNCOMPACTEp BACKFILL COMPACTED BACKFILL 13 MINIMUM FINISH GRAPE 1 FINISH GRADE NEW STREAMBANK SHALL BE 1 -' TREATED AS SPECIFIED IN PLANS - DITCH INVERT FLOW F CHANNEL INVERT - COMPACTED BACKFILL SECTION A - A' COMPACTED BACKFILL PROFILE VIEW S in n t 0 0. tr n 0 0 CD ova cw a.. CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE A Baker Engineering Project Manager will provide construction observation during the construction phase of this project. The following construction sequence shall be used during implementation of the plan. 1. Prior to beginning any land disturbing activities, notification and approval must be granted from NCDENR Division of Land Resources - Land Quality Section, US Army Corp of Engineers,. and NC Division of Water Quality. 2. The Contractor shall contact North Carolina "One Call" Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation, 3. The Contractor will mobilize equipment and materials to the site using the construction entrances (shown on the plans) along the farm roads off of Peoples Road. Two temporary gravel construction entrances will be installed. 4. The Contractor will utilize existing farm roads and ditch crossings to the extent possible. Any new ditch crossings to be installed will consist of temporary wood mats and shall be approved by the Engineer prior to installation. 5. Contractor will store all equipment and materials in staging/stockpile areas as shown on the plans. 6. Silt fence will be installed in locations shown on the plans prior to beginning any land disturbing activities in that area. 7. Contractor shall only clear and grub within the limits of disturbance and only to the extent necessary for construction. 8. Contractor shall begin construction on UT2 by first installing a temporary rock dam at approximate station 37 +00. 9. Contractor shall then dewater the area upstream of the temporary rock dam using the typical pump around operation as shown in the details. 10. Contractor shall then install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road, 11. Contractor shall then begin valley grading at the downstream end of UT2 and work up valley disturbing no more area than can be stabilized in one day. Contractor shall utilize pump around operation as necessary in this area and continue grading to approximate station 27 +50. 12. Contractor shall then install ditch plug #1 at the upstream end of UT2 to divert water around the work area. 13, Contractor shall continue grading activities working upstream filling ditches and dewatering as necessary until approximate station 13 +00. 14. Contractor shall then utilize pump around operations as necessary to complete grading activities. 15. immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction specifications. The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched. After the new graded valley has been constricted, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then plug and fill the remaining ditches and turn water into the new graded valley. 16. Contractor shall then begin construction on UT3 by installing ditch plug #2 as shown on the plans. This ditch plug is temporary and will be used to divert flow around the work area. 17. Then the Contractor shall grade the high area as shown at approximate station 21 +40. 18. Next, the Contractor shall install the RCP culverts as shown on the plans and repair the farm road. 19. Contractor shall then begin grading the valley and filling ditches as shown on the plans working upstream dewatering as necessary to approximate station 10 +50. 20. Immediately upon completion of grading, apply seed and mulch per the construction specifications. The Contractor shall not discharge flow into the new graded valley until valley has been seeded and mulched. After the new graded valley has been constructed, stabilized, and approved by the Engineer, the Contractor shall then install ditch plug 0, plug and fill the remaining ditches, remove ditch plug 42,. and turn water into the new graded valley. 21. Any excess excavated material shall be used to elevate the existing farm roads as directed by the Engineer. 22. All areas should be seeded and mulched prior leaving the project reach. Remove all temporary stream crossings. All waste material must be removed from the project site. 23. The Contractor shall plant woody vegetation, according to planting details and specifications. Reforestation shall be completed at the appropriate time of the year. 24. The Contractor shall treat areas of invasive species within the conservation easement boundary. 25. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site. �i CAR0 v,,, Q`••'ES3� ..♦ . a0.•F O y 0 920 iw,�• GI .•g`� J 00 Q Z y y�NV. 4 c 10 +00 ! ! boo _! r REMOVE EXISTING 15" CMP-1 II II II 11 11 11 I� II s BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY UT2 STA. 11 +45.78. FLARE OUT UNTIL THE ENTIRE VALLEY WIDTH IS CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS AT APPROXIMATE STA 12 +15.00. DITCH CF.Sn NOTES: FILL EXISTING DITCH —_ Q 13 00 IPLUq DITCH 1. UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING DIFFUSE FLOW. 2. TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE RESTORED VALLEY. 3. USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS. 5. TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. �akoo 17 +00 k-o J_— A Ro Q �i �• a •� S Si0 %1- r; PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS m NO USB P R WN6 RtJMON Michael Bather Engineering Inc. e990 ne9en<y Fanr.,ay. smw 599 Cary,K M CAROLlfl' 37519 FI e. 919,155.5 N la.as.s¢eo license f. F -1095 �9koo .p e E c� FILL EXISTING DITCH ® DITCH PLUG <e� PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN VIEW 40 20 0 40 80 SCALE (FT) i �akoo 17 +00 k-o J_— A Ro Q �i �• a •� S Si0 %1- r; PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS m NO USB P R WN6 RtJMON Michael Bather Engineering Inc. e990 ne9en<y Fanr.,ay. smw 599 Cary,K M CAROLlfl' 37519 FI e. 919,155.5 N la.as.s¢eo license f. F -1095 �9koo .p e E c� FILL EXISTING DITCH ® DITCH PLUG <e� PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION PLAN VIEW 40 20 0 40 80 SCALE (FT) E u r c '9 O�O � o� REMOVE EXISTING 18" PLASTIC PIPE 32' PP INV. 3.09' INV. FILL EXISTING REMOVE EXISTING�1,,� QITGH 12" PLASTIC PIP _ 24+00, i DITCH PLUG 18' PP INV. 3.64' - TIE EXISTING DITCH TO GRADED VALLEY AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. � J � 1 FILL ITCH l -FILL E�ISTING DITCH NV,3.53� J �" DITCH PLUG NOTES: 1. UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING DIFFUSE FLOW. 2. TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE RESTORED VALLEY. 3. USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS. 5. TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. 2. REMOVE IS - NG'h �. REMOVE EXISTING V. _ 12" PLASTIC PIPE t 12" PLAStIU.P`IP A' FILL EXl47G , i 3 _ ° — — —NV. 2,37` 1 \�NIS� €` 12' PIS PILL EXISTING �� 1 / �� z �� riNV. 2'24 DITCH �'1 \ ?k1\ �j9 Iz�RP of +00- /INV. 2 INV. .27' �c � INV. 1.93' FILL EXISTING, �` Jk ',k DITCH REMOVE EXISTING 12" PLASTIC PIPES �k + A PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION AREA 1 2 O i L� CL r 0 2 / Z7 0� ►Ml 34' °'.w\ FILL EXISTING DITCH s \ PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION Q G 1 y e� 32x00 -- -- m CD om CD o FILL EXISTING DITCH DITCH PLUG PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION m x a N c a c 6 m 0 / an Nd PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION AREA INSTALL (2) 40'- 36" RCP'S INVERT IN ELEV. 3.7' INVERT OUT ELEV, 3.6' SET RCP's 0.6' BELOW THE BED ELEVATION END CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY UT3 STA. 18 +50.00 p' 3� 3V.R7I \ j RCP v RE ,MOVE- F�(ISTING NV. 1.81' �� 18CMP °3 INV L99, REMOV!XI'STIMf OO 7 TIE �XI STI DITCH TO V INV. 1.11 -0 -0 �DED LLEY,XS DIRECTED BY `rHE ENGINEER. � f� FpIM•�l ` Jrr�rr J= fr— REMOVE [STING 32" CMP'S- r NOTES: 1. UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING DIFFUSE FLOW. 2. TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE RESTORED VALLEY. 3. USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS. 5. TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. 6. UT3 FROM APPROXIMATELY STA. 19 +50 TO STA. 22 +78 SHALL NOT BE DISTURBED EXCEPT TO GRADE THE HIGH AREA AT APPROXIMATE STA. 21 +40 TO FILL THE EXISTING DITCH. UT3'`I LINE pE00 7 I 00 / PR OSEd + /, RELOCATED t p FARM PATH c INSTALL 20' WIDE EMERGENCY OV RFLOW �t AS SHOWN IN TH8 DETAILS. qQX \.p \ A END CONST66 CTION s OF GRADEDIV� LLEY UT2 STA. 3614.00 { I [NST I L 4 (2) 40'- 36" RCP'S \ INVE�T N ELEV. 0.1' \ INVERT PUT ELEV. 0.0' l -SET RrKS 0.6' BELOW THE BED ELEVATION LCMPINV. 0 0 0.87' INSTALL 20' WIDE EMERGENCY OVERFLOW AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. \r 1 aU0 1 11 � XJ 2' 1 1 E f 1 CAR Q 2 ; w M � 00 a z GRADE HIGH AREA AND BLEND INTO SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY \ 1, EXISTING WETLAND DELINEATED BY OTHERS. NO PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY IMPACTS ARE ANTICIPATED. = FILL EXISTING DITCH ® DITCH PLUG ��s PROP OSI =D WETLAND RESTORATION r 6 u a n P a i a cxr �-a i TEMPORARY DITCH PLUG z VQ7 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OF GRADED VALLEY UT3 STA. 10 +50.00 5' CMI °F IN1V. .2 __ _ ce DITCH PLUG f /f v FILL EXISTING DITCH 12 +00 ,. 4ILL 14"A00 0 DIITCH_—__ �0%J11riii1,Z �•O�`••FESSi � ;o is 7.� -_ 0 z REMOVE EXISTING 15" CMP REPAIR FARM ROAD BACK TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER —15' CA4P IN V. 3.36' s, ♦♦♦ FILL EXISTING _ —_ _r �xO m \ \ DITCH - �♦ Ac ♦ :k �k �k �k �k O FILL EXISTING DITCH EM DITCH PLUG sae ! PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION 32' RCP INV. 3.42' V� 5� p0 REMOVE EXISTING 32" RCP REPAIR FARM ROAD BACK TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER 2.63' F PROPOSED WETLAND, RESTORATION AREA NOTES: 1. UT2 & UT3 WILL BE RESTORED TO A COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER STREAM AND zz WETLAND SYSTEM BY RESTORING THE HEADWATER VALLEYS AND PROMOTING DIFFUSE FLOW. 2, TO THE EXTEND POSSIBLE, CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOID COMPACTION WITHIN THE RESTORED VALLEY. 3. USE EXCAVATED MATERIALS TO FILL EXISTING DITCHES AND TO ELEVATE EXISTING r1 FARM ROADS AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER. f t 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE A MINIMUM OF 2' OF COVER OVER ALL PROPOSED CULVERTS UNDER FARM ROADS, 1 5. TOPOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RESTORED VALLEY AND WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT SHALL BE UNIFORM WITH NO SPOIL PILES OR UNNATURAL TOPOGRAPHY. :k �k �k �k �k O FILL EXISTING DITCH EM DITCH PLUG sae ! PROPOSED WETLAND RESTORATION 32' RCP INV. 3.42' V� 5� p0 REMOVE EXISTING 32" RCP REPAIR FARM ROAD BACK TO THE PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER 2.63' F c a m m N n 0 a c m 0 (a. m` CU]( �I[ r�r I ' 'i�il;l! C ■•,�•,��•• ®YirC ■1 ■ '� -! :. ■■ g Tlg g 1 ■1■ : 1 1 ��■■:�� : wR !!. ■ -■ ■ Elm :! '7! '■ '!■CI :r 1! p ' i � . — W L `Q C�Q1•I : Q ® . Q �� 9� � ! m■ii�� i g ' ■■ - • ■ II ml "" ' � -- ■ Q uian uQ■� In1I I _ ■NMi.RQ .. ��F� *A _ i ■■. r 1■ - �� ■ ■ ii ■' Y■r rr If I : : r�gCe' C" CC '� I In: I 1 -} p w 1 r C [ �C�!�E■[i0 � Emml ■E: ::`R ::■ Q� �:C : 1PRELIMINARY PLANS _C " �C �C : r N!■ �:■� OR C . m::C�:`f Q■o . „ ! ', MR E : E ■ lill .. ■ .. 1■■ : ■.■i ■ipp..rQ77 g� QEQ f�..'�._..�4 ■■� ._ r ! ■Cmi..IuQ. E I ■ HI Q Rolm W 'll:: :■a'u ■Hl On& !E 1■Q1WliuE:�l■■:1 MR ME ■f■ -- ll!!!+1!�I� In . i. III. I� �■ — ff � CC'r"': Il�m i1ff! � - -- on ?!C._. rr.� �r■P%r�!oili■li6rw�lri _ .i I fi RRRRRR Baker NEE • 1 , r �" 6 e . • _ ■ :f3ry■■ '::Cr m�glmIN #t�1 r w ■ ■ C ■w Ci .: 1 I �I 1Cl ,.__� ■.. �r�.. _... #.. 1� ■ fi 1 C :�'■ r ' C �i CC m■' '1'I 1 1! =gg' sm Cgg ■■ Q IgC l� ■ ■■ ■ - _.. ■ I ■ ■t r I IIII ::: No ENE - _ r I .11 I : 5� m'': � ■■�� ur- �:g'�C 1 I� �■'lam II :I 1 C �i I C ImIIII ■if �I� C:C�CC ■A IIl ■ I .S mgl 1 I g�Igl .. I g :�CC'C�C fill Ili .R� I I�I ■ ■ 'r C r`rC I�I :C1■ ■Illinl:ml::::: ■ ■i�Ai I C El:�CEl:".gG::r C'iinmEmCP`� ■!■molm a ii:: Irlr'C�i"rNr`O . 11! ::::: 'm::" w■: • • • ■■ :EmmIt i ■f!i II ■� 1 MIKE 10+00 it 10 11 11 151-00 - 11 11 10 11 4 ■ ■ !r■�■ ■■■rinr . : ■ Ellml: l g �� Iiiiu■i t 1 i : �l ' GI� � C CC�� 0 NE�.�. ■ 1Q i ` Ii �� QQQ ! ■ mC �CCii •El'�'�l�■ - E.■��ill ... ■�.■ tiirrti�•ir u'9 r ■Q 1 : ■ I ■��r` iif — ■ ■� r ' � 1 Ilgll g �Q7C ■I - • ■ ' NEE w . �HQ1s :'. iEl�i ■ '■ .. I � � .� � irr�,: ` ' ni■i■rri1111gIg1 ■ 'n ' ■! _ i•ir�ia:.� �ti R : :�■ g ■■ ■! ■! r R Is I� 1 M. ■ IgCC ■iu7rr'iti�'■YilrirYioiiirrrS�r 0 1 ■1 ■r I rQ t ' � li■1 a ■ 'P "I�-■� ■f'iwiGC nl■ 11 " Illr :° i ■ � 'll C � : Q■ ■'.'1!C'I ■ir ■� 1■l�y� ■iQi�irr'`■'i1Ef■e■i■oi- W 11 'C `� ■. ■1■ ICCCI C ■Yir� ■ '�.Q ■ I ■Ell : 'i�lii ""M : ©I lggg��„I C CC �' Itr■]i '�� ,�iri11A IIpq�IIyl�� lll"� i ' � ' G "rl■Qli! QQ�;'Wnfi �I li9 r r'1'! lli I■Ql!`��1 - • ■ ' !lam '- ■ !■11liL '�r■r<- 'r�i•' SM own IC�II ��lilg�l �; , - iriflir�iifi:■•E'r - - �w "rC' " ■C' iC' � ■E 1 II ■i ! .. ■rr 1 •.. • ■r ��I. .! of . :•.._ ',fir mil 1 1 "'iR I ?I' .. r r Q .. �� Q mgm '1:: helm n 'Hill r I ul mIm' ` I lg�' eg E E�CCC/c�■:° �y rl EE -: I I C��CCl.imil a■r nI r!: nE HI ■r nlIn uC;� �rCl■■ :C : ■ ■ ■g�r■�i�i/�i '�C�gICi -m '!a! ■ ■Q■■ CnICC�LE i■l ■ ■E! '�■'C : 1: i ' ILiI'rnl .1i Q ■..Q■�'t�lr, 1 1■ !1 ! ' ! I�!■�■■1��In� 1 ■1 ■ ■Inl.n �. ■ W aiE nln■■IgI` I IwI ■r ■ �Y- _ '9Q _. !.�■�r■ _ �ir■'r�i'�'frr.r ■TU�■i frr� -rr ■ ■r I I' . ■l.. • 11 1 1/ 11 11 1/ � 11 /1 . 11 11 : 1/ • 1/ 1 // � T - -�- -- - Q I ■ ■ : � _ it ! Q C :� 1�I`C�"� IgB: i ■ iin E..0 �:[l: 1 � . ■■ 1 ■ ig��i/C 1 Cl �I■I'Illlll 1; ._ • ■ �1 " so m ::... w �■ w■: : :: i�7 �G'G: ■: ' ■ l'1 ��,, pp ! ! ■lr CC C a ' ��. llli ■ ■ � .. E 1 ■r ■! ■r ■ ■1 ' - - ■`:� ■ wf lm: g' I ■ ■Q I u! :■'I . Q � 1. iW :l a ! llarl.:�i�'u'�i'1■1 Q ' ' ■ � � 1lQlaml::Q :r:l ■ErC ■■ lll 1 1 ILI meg: g■1Q � �. ■■ r I■lrll l��Q I rC Wu r,, i I■11�l'■: ■■ 1` C ■�■I1C:CC � ::: ■1Q �1I 'I rr'i - -- ' . ..g C: ' 1'I' ■ : Rilll ■CI ll ■il� `i I �llg■C "C C Il °' IN ' ■■ Iilg�•.�a l• I' I` :: Q ■GPu�9� �� Poi Ig� 1' �. ■ I' g�■ ■■ ■ ■n: GM•[�41i!!1. s' ■ r ■ ■mr ' ' ■ �`i p ■ 1 E1 ■ u � - ■ .C`I`■:C - ■��r!rrryy■■: ��r■■rrrrryyyyrrr� C■fi r:Cglg �17 ICIICg:II CCm #'C mIIII . I ■Q I Q g�giCC `' ■ ■■■■ W C !■■■!!! � ■If:: ■rl rw■ISl E ®m ■p I ■ _ lull' ulllQ W7■ ©:l Q ■ . :. . ■ alur W ■u ■� un :.':: i ■ ■`�� C: � ;..11:1 I ■l::•llia small :l:ll 111 ■■■u ■,1 ■ ■ 1■■ ■ ■■ ■1Q ■Q1 lilElllnEli■■lE ■lr rlr 'ggn ■l,■�wg:l1 � ■i ■ ■!� 6 '■`' ii�:i��'�a'miil�i' Cl ■'.rQrrl�i`:griC`l:`'wC� . �:a*R��■�Ew.R w ■o -u ■ w. *R.wQww■wl� r�r i lfri !■r .'� ■C ■`I■ rr r!r IrlIC lr■■ " �".■' Imo" 1 • ®CIIII pp_ 'mI !� ■�� 'i' I1: m I :r I l:llml m:■ i" C:■ I' C :•:•�:..C��15RUSS�fi:a::n0 on W■■ Q■■! ■■ ■G.'■ ■ �■�`:`:■ ■`i . � i ' "".fi..�: .. ! �i.��r ::' moms ■ ■ ° ■ C � Igl■ ■r ■ II C ■ ' ��l .m,11 �l ■ ■C"C ■ ..g CI _ i ■:1111 1 ! ■ 1: ■1■ ■ .gr��11.11 ■ .■:rll:: "l�Ell 11 Inll■.ii'ii'■: CII C`C0 I'.�mI:CC:::. C�E:I:II H :1 : � In ■l mC: ■■■r 0 ■W 1 ■Q �Im:��1C`RI:� r:l r ! M ■■E1::fQ■■ :I C El : 1 l I 'llll I �::,:,�r ■ I .CI, ■R � ��C�SC�C�I ■lr■ ! �I::� � n1:CIl1C'■ l�� 1 C ■ ■.Q■m 1I ■ lI:n ■QEf '�' : II :mI`s.'r I 0 Ron n no " ! iflr E if ■!E ! ! ' ' '■ :'�i1:EQi'=Ed I mQlQn ■ ::Qln: 111■lw ■■ �� ■r I r■n ` r IIIIII:O' : ■ I l m 111mrplul Im �W= INNERn E�l: i ■�■ 30+00 11 /# 10 01 11 • 1/ 10 t m N N C O a m • • momrwqw �-, fir ' • NI• IF -- . . �� N'' '. [�?Q[ 1• r �1 1'r'11 ■[■w..�www� '" '�''1Nr 1 _:._1 - 11rl`r'r`■'Ir�'�ii'`■�`r'MN - . ' _ C1 .; Q� ■! ;.Q ..r .QN w"�C:I ..QIIm7Cil�y�I 0 =:::1�Mum KN 1� 'rte.: ■`� �. � .� � Q.[[[[■Q[[ ■ i■u#11�R11 ■;. �. ■:[[[[■ sQ■ Q , . ! !Q; �[ • .. FOR CONMUMON ■ �il N�Ion �i N ■ [ Q Q QU ■ Q Qi . - u ■ I Hill 1 .. ;°�[Q no- .R:,�� . [ .Q.; QQ . gym�-1 Q.■ ■ii® Ni Cl:■E C r�■�EE1E11E 1 ! 1� 1Q QQ■uu[ Q■ ■; 1i ; _ `■� ■■'[ 1.1 Q1 �1 ■�■[■■ 1 'Trr� : '■::m 1111Q E ■rw �"' M - .� ;1.. NI. Baker ma i�gmE�, E :: m� ■m m : m:■ [�I ■rmm ■ �E� m � ■ 1 !r 11rrr rr ■ ■ ■ ■ !■[!■! 1 r rQ 1 1r1 ilrl 1 1 1� 11 1�E No . ■[ - ■� 1■! ■1 ■ ■ / �. ■� _ ■ MR i s ■ �� - -yl + u ■ ■ �i.riu�'■ �_ �■_ � I4�!A �ii�■_R__ �y ■�r��■ �i _Liam. � w_ol�� 0 1a�QiJ�.. r r■ r r 1 11 1 rr■i r QrrQ1r �EEm �� E ! 1'1 ! oil rri - ■[ ■61 lE�' ' �1 1 * � [ 'i �11' 1`iE��CI 1 "m� r` 11 mmm: _� 1C:[N� l��l:`11 1 �� Emm `�m.:E'� ��,,�,, �� r : 1,■ � r,9� �' :1. r E 1 �:1 1 1 IE 1� 1 1 �11 1m111 IE1 111 ■Q! . ! i i Q ■ r■Qrii r .■ ■ - --.. .. - ■�. .r._.. - ■� r.. iR✓ i�R7� _.._RwARi .il R,R�_r. �l1aRiR,■ uQ mom E ti i1 IN � rrrls 1� �; IEE $ GE � ■ :- ' �„ . Ilk •• � _ r i 10+00 11 11 01 11 11 16+00 11 11 • 11 B� 1 1mm a mom - ■ ■stir - �u 11 i■YY�' - r[iiii[ Yr - - frQ�rirlrti rrrrfieifi�rillri�ir�ii1 r Y�.i - - _ iii - ��rirriiiiii'�r7Y Q Q [u i i r ■ ur rr [ [r>ElrQrQr u QQ � rut Q ri i ai imp it ■ri: i.is� . • ! Q ® d [[ Q ■ 1![■ . [ [ rlr� ru;� N 11 1 111 1 li QQU' ®Q �`r[`�.r�rQ�r. � NrQi� � r■:. r Q � 1 � Q r�� • - ■..`N�'�u■ ��■. ..qC ■� ■.Nlll lEl11" . N . �„�1 rll[ r■rr ■ rtirlltirrrrtirr i! ■! riria� r ■��r� r._ � 1 NEED r � u �i ■� - . I.ICI=IIIINI r r `E 1 ` QN _ �■ IN E9 l X11 `■■:mm:::■ �Q. ` � :G::Q !■ man 11111111 :QlQ: �:im::l1 ■. rrrr■ 11■ r Q it r r■ i■ i Gil _` ■*!I■ rR��r■■`` �Q� 1 I1�1 .� ti .... ° . ■B.. rti E'a"r �.. ° ■ ■rl l� .',�'•tir` ■. urr ■.�a � rmlll 1m11 .`�'I IE!!!!! ;r.r'11 u� �`■ ` N 11'i�' �rl rrirr.r�i"'�"i QN ; 1 1 111 1 111 E 1 111 N 111 it 1 it 111 1 :N 11111N1r EE:�EDm:oll, � Ems■�!!! 1 ; ; e ..� �.Q �` MQ; ■mEQ.�� ` E� 9E ■EQ■E ■EE.QEQ �: ; - E 1 1 1 1 • :• • 1111r 1 1 1111 1111 11111111111 '� 111 1 1 rIrN 111 "■ '• 1 ` !� rlr r. 'Q r�illruiC ■ :rii .. E E !!!! [E -e'er■■ �!'•E �_.:.■ , [. Q .! i R� ■. AR *- illtA■.� !_. ■r� ■ r■ - ■i��.[�rti�rWY��W "- ` ` - - . !.. ..ifr ■.k - - ■i l�i.ti,ltiif�. rti[rrriti ir- ■ rr ■Y ■rrilrr■ rru�■�..W.■f■ rrr ■�r r�.r..rrrrrliiii�iiii' - r.niriirrr - irrri ■ ■ - 1E1 m [ : ..E1N ��E1:9N1EE11'uIEIEIU'IUEEE1�yE 1�11�11 EIE1rN1N1:N�.`1�� r �p 1 ■ ■ ■■ Q ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Q [■ ! 1 ■1 ■Q,■ Q ■ ■ ■ ■l:■ 1:1i ■ r Q [7il.i ■trim uQiiuiiaimQ iiriii■.. riui■r.. u■iQri �i u ■ - ! i ■ r ■ ! rrrrQ ■ 1 ■ rr nr rQQ QQQ ■ Qr ■ Qr ul ul ®■ fr■■ ©r [■ • N E.1rEm■mmmm9lllEllEl 1 1T �Q 11[N;! 1■1�sN�N�.1 .1![:�"y6[rN�E, N![��[ .o. ■.pN �N� � 1 tiltlirr"Hisi rl[Firl`tlllr ir■r■i `■ ru ■ rr�iiAt'lifl`■rif�■ i■ - "�`fi�lYti■�[li'r�ir�i ` ■iF '(rEii - ■ ! ' : rQQ N Q ■!;[ ii BROKEN ■ r1Qit[�)f'_■r r. r Q ■ . r ` �C: • 19+00 20+00 11 10 11 Ion ■u■� `fir■ 11m�11![i1.1![. Q� 1■ 11 ` r I pi �� ! w ;1��r■E�`; 1■[■1 ■[!�■�u Q■n1■ 1■.71 ■■ 0 ■QQQl'QQ![■!! [Q1,7■Q■■1[[QQ■Q■!![- �E��pi ■r �i`rr�.l�lQ� '1` �' .r 1 fir i : °i ;r;r� rrrrii "Niiii 1 NJ 19`rii N �! wr: p■ N`1 ■- :■ r�rii .:i ■ ■ ` i:r ■ :m ■ .r rr r �l'■ ■ o r■� rlru[[■ 0 Q r �■■.rm r r ■■ E �[. ■ QI■` N[�'�1 Q ■ ©� ■ iA E ;! rr;lrl■ rlr` ■ 1'_" :m 1 r11 ■imp lr� 11m�[ 1��N�Oi■EEm�m[��■ �1�[[�lE ■i..!! ---- -- .■Nl�ll:Hol�tlr 1r6■"JI :'m "'!"�'■.Q...■ so IF L■.r�.m. IO.Q[a r ■:■:1.�"iilIng ii r'�i"Lr �iilir�rr11C1�11 1 . ■�`NI'� 13 ' 1 ■1"� ■ .�'"�"sNQ.Nr:�.>r.�. - a- BAKER PROIECT REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. 1 1! 1 PROJEU ENGINEER 1•CAR0 ws�• V7'EIl NOT PRELIMINARY PLANS DO USE FOR CONSTFRI]CTION 0 92 I'l ap a Cary,:M40.M0iIRA P]618 Y ` PRaw:9i &463.64F8 C i Fac elB.w.seo Ocanao f. F -3081 M O Z 4 �AA .:_.. tom. if g' �•�•Bq• .l A y S 10+00 BjY. %9P �e 'l*0 / �—a N INYP {i ce X �� 1 i f �G ry5 it 11 11 11 11 t I �1 I:1 n 1y'1 l� I Il I1 N I ! II NOTES: I I PLANTING ZONE 1. SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES ON SHEET 1 -A. ` I 1 2. ALL AREAS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE PLANTED. REVEGETATION PLAN o , 3. TOTAL PLANTING AREA= 17.5 ACRES. III 60 30 0 60 120 SCALE (FT) G Ln U- r 0 a i 0 m�O an �a BAKER PRo0a REFERENCE NO. SHEET NO. lzbllb If PROJECT ENGINEER tl�� Z� 7 /�r�i y PRELIMINARY PLANS n G �: �_ DO HOT USE FOR CONSTRUCTION 0 2 GIN / '� O .•g�� B040 Re M yS01,M IRC. \ 4� C¢n. NO CMWNAx MS J \ S Kex B1B 1& r-104 �.r. �1691 r \ M X z , NOTES: x 1 �. tl' 1. SEE VEGETATION SELECTION TABLES ON SHEET 1 -A. r 2. ALL AREAS WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT SHALL BE PLANTED. \� 3. TOTAL PLANTING AREA = 17.5 ACRES. ' r 1,1 r � � x ! No ,A / P ,r i GRADE HIGH AREA AND \ RLEND INTO SURROUNDING A ` - Ii I l TOPDGRAPHY P � IaSpll \ b \ ♦ y Hfl KRUMENTAO OEEUPOF r ARE fiNTK;PJTEO. 1 •.IP .1 REVEGETATION PLAN PLANTING ZONE a _r f1F4R„ pang -ai 60 30 0 60 120 _rr SCALE (FT) iTATN I usnt PROACTT ILOaaa NO INDEX OF SHEETS NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM INCI 125116 EC -1 TITLE SHEET EC -2 _ EC -3 DETAILS EC -4 - EC -6 SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROL PLAN ST CLAIR CREEK Qj SEDIMENTATION & EROSION CONTROL PLAN 0 ��,1 ►CAR ®��i 0 2- rM N STD. NO DESCHU'•1'lON SYNIDOI. 6.06 'TEMPORARY GRAWI. CONSTRUCTION ACCESS • • • • • • • • . • . 6.62 SILT FENCE • • • • ...............................-- FI+— i1H11— GRAPHIC SCALES 60 30 0 60 120 PLAINS THIS PROJECT CONTAINS EROSION CONTROL PLANS FOR ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. TOTAL DISTURBED AREA = 24.9 Acres LOCATION: BEAUFORT COUNTY OFF OF PEOPLES ROAD NEAR BATH, NC TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND RIPARIAN WETLAND MITIGATION 0 r yam, I �U� PROJECT STANDARDS TIM FOL.L.OW NG STANDARDS AS THEY APPEAR IN T"V, "NC LROSION CONTROL PLANNING: AND DESIGN WNUAL" AND ARE APPI•ICAIII.R TO THIS I'ROJWr AND BY REITIRENGE HERERY ARE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PLANS. 6.06 TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 6.62 SILT FENCE UT J m 0 a j1Z PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: ®Michael Baker GUMAWII. Inc. 8000Ragena Baker En,lnee in Cary, NCRTH CAR6UNA 2i51R r • Phero�B1B 4635a B9 Fay Bia 4aassea Ll�¢nsa R F -1084 FALL 2013 I JACOB BYERS, PE LETTING DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER 6 PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE POR CONSTRUCTION { UT 3 i1 .4 PREPARED IN THE OFFICE OF: ®Michael Baker GUMAWII. Inc. 8000Ragena Baker En,lnee in Cary, NCRTH CAR6UNA 2i51R r • Phero�B1B 4635a B9 Fay Bia 4aassea Ll�¢nsa R F -1084 FALL 2013 I JACOB BYERS, PE LETTING DATE: PROJECT ENGINEER 6 PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT USE POR CONSTRUCTION TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING - WOOD MAT I TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE i PROJECT ENGINEER CROSS SECTION NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCT STREAM GROSSING WHEN FLOW IS LOW. 2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON -SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS. 3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS, DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM. PLAN VIEW 4. LINE STREAMBANK AND ACCESS RAMP AREA WITH NON-WOVEN FILTER FABRIC - 5. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING AT RIGHT ANGLE TO THE FLOW. 6. TRANSPLANT SOD FROM ORIGINAL STREAMBANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES FOR LATER USE. 7. MAINTAIN CROSSING SOTHAT RUNOFF IN THE CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER BUSTING CHANNEL BY INSTALLING SILT FENCE ON ALL FOUR CORNERS ADJACENTTOTHE STREAM. SEE SILT FENCE DETAIL S. STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE FDGE OF THE MUD MAT. S. THE WOOD MAT SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SITE AND WIDTH TO SUPPORT THE LARGEST VEHICLE CROSSING THE CHANNEL 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED, RECOMMENDED ATA 5:I SLOPE. WOOD MAT SILT FENCE --\ CLASS B STONE COIR FIBER MATTING PLACE COIR FIBER MATTING IN 6INCH DEFP TRENCH, STAKE, BACKFILL, AND COMPACT STOP OF BANK CROSS SECTION VIEW TRENCH TOP OF BANK ;� �; ; ` ._•., �� . ; .� ;� .� ; _.l- 7 PLAN VIEW LARGE STAKES NOTES, 1. BANKS SHOULD BE SFEOED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF MATlTNG. 2. USECOFR FIBER MATTING. 3. LARGE STAKES SHOULD NOT BF SPACED FURTHER THAN 16" APART. 4. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL SEAMS, IN THE CENTER OF BANK, AND TOE OF SLOPE. TRENCH FOP OF BANK STAKES COIR FIBER MATTING TO BE EXTENDED TO TOE OF SLOPE CLASS B STONE RAMP 2.5 INCH ROOFING NAIL TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE LEG LENGTH i7.00 1N 43.18 CAl APLRED TO POIN IAIDTH 1.5IN 3.81 CM THICKNESS I 1.S IN 3,81 CM TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE LEG LENGTH I I.DD IN 7.94 C HEAD4+ADTH 1.25 IN 3.18 CM HEADTHICKNESS 0.40 IN fl.02 CM LEG WIDTH 0.W IN 1.52 CM APERFD TO POIN LEGTHICKNESS C.40 IN (I Q2 CM TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN 439.48 CM PUBLIC ROAD PRELIMINARY PLANS W NDT VSS FUR CONbMUCTIUN 11111,11 Bak,,En9ln9•dny Inc. . Repenq P2, 9v�b•W � Gsm. NgmR CM011[Nn51A � PF��'elea�5{PB Fax 919.9].6/90 Umue t. F10& FPUBLIC ROAD G'MINIMUM THICKNESS OF F-- WASHED CLASS A STONE FILTER FABRIC NOTES: SPECIFICATION NO. &06 - CONSTRUCTION ACCESS 'N.C. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLANNING AND DESIGN MANUAL MARCH 200V WIRE OR PLASTIC ZIP TIES WJTF A MINIMUM TENSILE STRENGTH OF 50 LB SHALL BE USED TO CONSTRUCT THE FENCE MESH CONSISTING OF 14 GAGE WIREATMAX SPACING OF 6'A' WIRE MESH - FILTER FABRIC - MECHANICALLY COMPACTFO FILL - 2 PASSES OF A COMPACTION DEVICE EXERTING AT LEAST 60 LBAN' ON BOTH SIDES OF FENCE RUNOFF DIRECTION -_III -II� FILTER FABRIC -'� TEMPORARY SILT FENCE IT MAX. WITH WIRE NOTES: (6` MAX. WITHOUT WIRE, 1. AVOIDJOINTS, UNAVOIDABLE JOINTS MUST HAVE4 FEEL OF CLOTH OVERLAP REQUIRES USE OF EXTRA STRENGTH FILTER FABRIC) AND SHOULD TIE INTO THE NEXT ADJACENT POST (4' MAX. WIRE, I NORMAL AL STRENGTH PREVENT CUTAROUND _ FILTER FABRIC) _ :CL SEAL � - O2 r' T -POSTS SHALL BE 1.33 LBIF STEEL WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 5 F£FT AND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED SO AS TO ALLOW FOR FASTENING OF THE FABRIC FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE STANDARD OR EXTRA STRENGTH SYNTHETIC FIBER CERTIFIED BY THE MANUFACTURER TO COMPLY WIM MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS IN ASTM STANDARDS D 6461, 4632, 4491, 4751" AND 4355. FENCF HEIGHT NOTES: MAX Z4" ABOVEGROUND 1. AVOIDJOINTS, UNAVOIDABLE JOINTS MUST HAVE4 FEEL OF CLOTH OVERLAP AND SHOULD TIE INTO THE NEXT ADJACENT POST 2. PLACE ON CONTOUR EXCEPT ENDS WHICH SHOULD BE V ABOVE GRADE TO PREVENT CUTAROUND -_ 3_ WRAP APPROX. 6" OF FABRIC AROUND END POSTS AND SECURE WITH TIES f2l�- 4. REMOVE ONCE AREA IS STABLE r. OEPTH INIMUM c a a m IF u w 2 a I(1 N n r 9 a i r 0 "o 0 i io acn r..v Imr¢ TEMPORARY FLEk TEMPORARY ROCK DAM STABILIZED OUTLE EXISTING TYPICAL PUMP AROUND OPERATION TEMPORARY ROCK DAM GEOTEXTILE FABRIC 1 EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY URY SECTIONS OF CHANNEL. 2. TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS SHOULD BE USED TO ISOLATE WORK AREAS FROM STREAM FLOW. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DISTURB MORE AREA THAN CAN BE STABILIZED IN ONE WORKING DAY. 4. THE PUMP - AROUND PUMP SHOULD ADEQUATELY CONVEY 1 OFS (460 GALLONS PER MI NUTE). SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPfCAL PUMP ARGUN❑ 1_ INSTALL STABILIZED OUTLET AT THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE DESIGNATED PROJECT WORKING AREA 2_ THE CONTRACTOR WILL INSTALL THE PUMP AROUND PUMP AND THE TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE THAT WILL CONVEY ME BASE FLOW FROM UPSTREAM OF THE WORK SITE TO THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN OR STABILIZED OUTLET. 3, INSTALL UPSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION. 4, INSTALL THE DOWNSTREAM TEMPORARY ROCK DAM AND PUMPING APPARATUS IF NEEDED TO DEWATER THE ENTRAPPED AREA. THE PUMP AND HOSE FOR THIS PURPOSE SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO DEWATER THE WORK AREA. THIS WATER WILL FLOW INTO A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN. 6. THE CONTRACTOR WILL PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAN AND FOLLO1AlING THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE. 6. THECONTRACTOR WILL EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE REMOVAL OF THE TEMPCRARYROGK DAM. REMOVE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE STARTING WITH THE DOWNSTREAM DAM FIRST, 7. THE CONTRACTOR WILL COMPLETE ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION IN ONE DAYWITHIN THE PUMP AROUND AREA BETWEEN THE TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS. S. ONCE THE WORKING AREA IS COMPLETED, REMOVE THE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND STABILIZED CUTLET AND STABILIZE DISTURBEDAREAS WITH SEED AND MULCH. 15- 20 FT BASIN INSTALL 21NCH PAD OF STONE BACKFILL BETWEEN SPECIAL STILLING BASIN AND COIR FIBER MATTING PROJECT REFERENCE NO. I SHEET NO. TEMPORARY ROCK DAM 1251/r---r— PROJECT ENGINEER FLOW m PRELIMINARY PLANS ¢ DO 1440T USS Post wNffmu=0N U y CONSTRUCTION AREA UPSTREAM w STONE BACKFILL STILLING BASIN \ (2 FT. MAX DEPTH) Mlchaol Raker Fn0lnocrII In , coca Hesa�� y, —t, e Cary,NORTHCM01] 27518 1 GEOTEXTILE FABRIC A r • 919.40 I sa Foams r. rnoaa CLASS STONE ��\ ' CARD EXISTING CHANNEL -�% \® OGESS� •, ��_��' PLAN VIEW " ?CL ` y or Gf oe FLOWS 1' I r 2 2 T �, 2 STONE UACKFILLJ ` GEOTEX71LE FABRIC CROSS SECTION CARf *�i O� /� i SHEET PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS PO NOT USR FOR MNSPRUMON NOTES: 4. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. 2, CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY. 3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. 4. GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. 6. ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE. STEPHEN K K*O .JII U.1C nmk T. POLE CONTROL PLAN 200 100 0 200 400 SCALE (FT) 1� i STAG INGISTOCKPILE 10 +00 DITCH PLUG #1 r ry�ao 16OPOSED -r lil� 1 SILT FENCE ii LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE � 11 ,1 1; it 14 11� � ti 1= i11�11= j 1�1 i 1111 ill =� p`ST�}R6 � �axOp olls INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED 1� NOTES: .111'i 1. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE 11 Ill END OF EACH WORK DAY. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY. 3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. 4. GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. 6. ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE. DITCH PLUG #3 EK Il p \ 23 +00 � J.nAO PROPOSED SILT FENCE ( *� STAGING /STOCKPILE AREA INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED � INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED ILi �1 J r J 1 � o G co `�01!llill/�� CARO /// :CL yEdA -IL' GoF- O r� 4!A0 0 10 ! I INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED 1� NOTES: .111'i 1. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE 11 Ill END OF EACH WORK DAY. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY. 3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. 4. GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE. 6. ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE. DITCH PLUG #3 EK Il p \ 23 +00 � J.nAO PROPOSED SILT FENCE ( *� STAGING /STOCKPILE AREA INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED � INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED ILi �1 J r J 1 � o G co `�01!llill/�� CARO /// :CL yEdA -IL' GoF- 101 Is] IC63 1. TEMPORARY SEEDING & MULCHING SHALL BE PLACED ON ALL DISTURBED AREAS AT THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB NO MORE GROUND THAN CAN BE STABILIZED THE SAME DAY, 3. ALL EXISTING ROADS OR PATHS USED FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE REPAIRED, IF NECESSARY, TO THE PRE- CONSTRUCTION CONDITION OR BETTER. 4. GROUND STABILIZATION MUST BE PROVIDED IN 7 DAYS ON PERIMETER AREAS AND SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1 AND IN 14 DAYS ON ALL OTHER AREAS. 5. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS THE SITE FROM PEOPLES ROAD BY THE TEMPORARY GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND USE THE EXISTING FARM ROADS AS HAUL ROADS TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE, 6. ALL STAGING AND STOCKPILE AREAS SHALL BE BORDERED BY SILT FENCE. h .� p0 PROPOSED SILT FENCE STAGING /STOCKPILE ARE SiAGIG�TOG'KPILE AREA �. • PROPOSED SILT FENCE INSTALL (2) 40' - 36" RCP'S INVERT IN ELEV, 3.7' INVERT OUT ELEV, 3.6' SET RCP'S 0 -6' BELOW THE BED ELEVATION STAGINGISTOCKPILE AREA PROPOSED SILT FENCE INSTALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING AS NEEDED INSTALL (2) 40'- 36" RCP'S INVERT IN ELEV.0.1' INVERT OUT ELEV, 0.0' SET RCP'S 0.6' BELOW THE BED ELEVATION 5 t 1 GRADE NIGH AREA AND BLEND INTO SURROUNDING TOPOGRAPHY 1 s 1 r \1 DELMffATED I TEkPORABY PROJECT ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PLANS DO NOT V96 FOR CONSFRUL GN hllch,11 Eaker Engineering In6. � eaao keBenry ram.�y, sew aao Cary. HORTii C.IROLIN.S x�51e Phone: 81B,�63,5188 Fu' Bi9.R83.5i90 Lfwn:e f. F -iBBI O ESSj• ;�' CONTROL PLAN 60 30 0 60 120 SCALE (FT) 19.0 APPENDIX E - LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST REPORT MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 19 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION Poole Mitigation Site Beaufort County, North Carolina Prepared for: Scott Hunt, P.E. Baker Engineering 800 Regency Parkway, Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 Prepared by: The ater` c r4Up 4106 Millstone Drive Hillsborough, NC 27278 February 8, 2011 INTRODUCTION Baker Engineering is proposing a mitigation site along two branches located in Beaufort County, NC. The approximately 208.74 -acre study area is comprised of two sites, located on the west and east sides of Peoples Road. Site 1 is located on the west side of Peoples Road and is comprised of active agricultural fields. Site 2 is located on the east side of Peoples Road and is comprised of a managed loblolly pine stand. As part of the site development process, The Catena Group (TCG) has been retained to perform a detailed Hydric Soil Investigation that describes and classifies the soil throughout the study area and make a determination as to its hydric status and the feasibility to provide wetland mitigation. METHODOLOGY Prior to performing the evaluation, existing documentation was reviewed, including NRCS soils maps, USGS topographic maps, etc. The field investigation was performed on February 4, 2011. Eleven hand - turned soil auger borings were advanced throughout sites 1 and 2 at predetermined locations (Figure 1). Soil boring locations were located with a GPS Unit with sub -meter accuracy. Hydric soil status is based upon the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils (2010). RESULTS All soil borings within sites 1 and 2 exhibited at least one hydric soil indicator and are placed into the Hydric Soil Unit. A soil boring log detailing each soil description, described using the USDA -NRCS standard nomenclature, is included in the appendix. Hydric soil determinations were based upon Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the Unities States - A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0, 2010). The results are summarized in Table 1. Table 1. List of all soil borings and corresponding hydric indicator. Soil Boring Hydric Soil Indicator B1, B2 F6 B3 All B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, 1310, B11 F3 Hydric Soil Unit. All soils observed at the predetermined locations are classified as hydric by meeting one or more of the following indicator(s): A11. Depleted Below Dark Surface: A layer with a depleted or gleyed matrix that has 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less, starting within 30 cm (12 inches) of the soil surface, and having a minimum thickness of either: a. 15 cm (6 inches), or b. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm consists of fragmental soil material. Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011 TCG Job #4152 1 F3. Depleted Matrix: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either: a. 5 cm (2 inches) if the 5 cm is entirely within the upper 15 cm (6 inches) of the soil, or5 cm (6 inches), or b. 15 cm (6 inches), starting within 25 cm (10 inches) of the soil surface. F6. Redox Dark Surface: A layer that is at least 10 cm (4 inches) thick, is entirely within the upper 30 cm (12 inches) of the mineral soil, and has: a. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 1 or less and 2 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft masses or pore linings, or b. Matrix value of 3 or less and chroma of 2 or less and 5 percent of more distinct or prominent redox concentrations o occurring as soft masses or pore linings. CONCLUSION All soils were identified as hydric by showing at least one hydric soil indicator. The findings presented herein represent TCG's professional opinion based on our Soil and Site Evaluation and knowledge of the current regulations regarding wetland mitigation in North Carolina and national criteria for determining hydric soil. This investigation was done on a broad scale to generally identify the major soil units with regard to hydric status and mitigation potential. If the project is to proceed, additional soil borings are recommended in order to better delineate the soil units. Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011 TCG Job #4152 2 R B2 B3 E31, It � �B4 ,` B11 610 B5 Bfi ■ Baker Engineering Boring Placement 8 7 B9 B8 Hydric Soil -y The Poole Mitigation Site February 2011 Figure =,3e G 250 500 Feet Catena Site and Soil Investigation Group l � 6eaufort County, North Carolina Gob No. 4152 Appendix A Soil Boring Log Poole Mitigation Site - Hydric Soil Investigation February 8, 2011 TCG Job #4152 4 HydrlG F3 r o MMPMTC. SOIL/SITE EVALUATION sieel Of DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT (Continuation Sheer) PROPaRTY ID #: AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL, HEALTH DATE �DO'�° � a r `�''� z° OF EVALUATION; COUNTY: G Abr P R SOIL MORPHOLOGY OTHER I• 1 (.1941) PROFILE FAC'T'ORS E .1940 LANDSCAPE POSITION/ i1ORIZ ON •1941 M41 -1942 SOIL .1943 .1956 .1944 PROFILE €1 SLOPE % DEPTH (IN) STRUCTURE/ TEX' IFRE CONSISTENCE/ MINERALOGY WETNESS/ SOIL COLOR DEPTH SAPRO CLASS RESTR GLASS HORN/ & /,TAR Af or 91 vf Az -q-1Z A 1 Ir 10 YT 314 'C, P ye #I6 m 1 r S 4/r 1 56k rte/ 7 NO � ' l ) r s T CU y 6, p !ii I �J C3IrP �4t �" y 9 1 56k 5 -1 , r 51 2,5rSA 1 s 1 f , s Y s�Z ; �- p J0 q s�G Z• I Yglz ; m p /0 Ie 54 I-�ydri L 11,, SG CA�4 Z• 5- I 'I 1 All Q i r 5 f z• 5- r ) C) 5'1 I3� 04 � t -i k �5 1/4 0- 3 i4'X 0'" rk,� Y) s 6 src_ t' Z, 5 Y m F � �i� ��,, p 5Y�Ic.;�a r.} sG Z.5) �/ HydrlG F3 r o MMPMTC. SOIL /SITE EVALUATION DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT (Cvnlirruadivn Sheet) AND NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Sheef z of PROPERTY ID #: DATE OF EVALUATION: COUNTY: P R F I E E # .1940 LANDSCAPE POSITION/ SLOPE % iiOR17 ON DEPTH SOIL MORPHOLOGY OTHER (.1941) PROFILE FACTORS PROFILE CLASS LTAR .1941 STRUCTURE/ TEXTURE .1942 .1941 SOIL CONSISTENCEf WETNESS/ MiNERALOG1f COLOR .1443 .1956 .1944 SOIL SAPRO RESTR DEPTH CLASS HORIZ 11 �7o .! 4g) Z- iydr,c, d -q rn r s ' i">? ,p s'-1 V77 � 1 5 41Ile 1 0, r. �• r'i^r W G. %y T y- �� A 9�' r��pnG sl v/{� Tr Y� 2' Y +�'r �� /4r �� 76;f�rr• //0��5' LI -1�1 11 pp � m SGK SG� F3 8$ r� �� Gr 1 ✓t'7 6 ✓ZQ- (�J fi � ! �2 O'r ir1 c S YY�s � Pi R t Ll -1 > s 3/ ^nnA�n��rm. C OMMF.NTC SOIL/SITE EVALUATION (Corarinuptian Sheer) DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENT PROPERTY ID #: AND NATURAL RESOURCES DATE OF EVALUATION: DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH COUNTY: mss,, rY p R SOIL MORPHOLOGY OTHER F I (.1941) PROFILE FACTORS L .1940 1 ---71 E LANDSCAPE IIORIZ 1 -1942 POSITION'/ .1941 .1941 SOIL .1943 .IPSO PROFILE m SLOPE % D 11Ei''1'Ii STRUCTURE/ CONSISTENCEJ WETNESS/ OIL SOIL SAPRQ RESTR CLASS EST (IN.) TEXTURE MINERALOGY COLOR DEPTH CLASS HORI!.. & LTAR vvr `q, o. f F3 C OMMF.NTC 20.0 APPENDIX F - HEADWATER REFERENCE INFORMATION MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 20 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT Conference Proceedings Stream Restoration in the Southeast: Advancing the Science and Practice November 3 - 6, 2008 Asheville, North Carolina A Methodology for Predicting Channel Form in Coastal Plain Headwater Systems Kevin L. Tweedy, PE Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. Introduction In 2007, an information paper was issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) that allowed for the restoration of Coastal Plain riparian headwater wetland valleys to provide compensatory stream mitigation. This information paper recognizes that in the Coastal Plain many headwater stream systems have been ditched and channelized to improve drainage. In their pre- disturbance condition, it is unlikely that these systems would have had defined channels; therefore, a restoration approach seeking to construct a meandering channel would not be appropriate. Since few restoration projects have been implemented to date that make use of this information paper, technical design information for these systems is very limited. To provide additional design data, a study of Coastal Plain headwater reference sites was initiated with the following goals: 1) Identify reference sites that represent intact, functional systems 2) Describe the formation of channel features in headwater stream systems 3) Develop design guidance for determining when it is and is not appropriate to restore a defined stream channel. The methods used to evaluate each goal are described in the sections that follow. Identification of Reference Sites Because headwater sites in the Coastal Plain are small and easily manipulated, it is difficult to locate systems that have not been altered or impacted by human activities. Searches were aimed at identifying small catchments (< 300 acres in size) with a wooded canopy and no apparent artificial drainage affecting the reference areas. Assessments would then be conducted at the most upstream point that showed a defined valley with periodic surface flow, and continuing downstream until a perennial flow feature was identified. Data collected from these assessments would then used to determine the points at which headwater valleys form channel and fluvial features. An extensive search was conducted in an attempt to locate reference stream systems. Numerous potential sites were identified; however, the majority of these sites had been drained for agricultural purposes or local topography had been modified through forestry practices in the past. Initially, four reference reaches along two headwater drainages were identified in close proximity to Aurora, NC. To provide additional data, eight reference reaches were identified along three headwater drainages within the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern, NC. These reference sites are summarized as follows. UT to Bailey Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to Bailey Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches are 88 and 94 acres, respectively. The upstream reach (UTBA -IA) exhibits wrack lines, scour features, and a somewhat braided flow pattern. In some locations, flow is confined but the channel is not well defined. Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel. This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTBA -113). Channel dimension is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris. UT to South Creek: Two reference reaches were surveyed on an unnamed tributary to South Creek. Drainage areas for the upstream and downstream reaches are 215 and 250 acres, respectively. The upstream reach (UTSC -IA) was surveyed approximately 600 feet downstream of NC Route 306. Along this upstream reach, flow patterns are diffuse and braided, with a considerable amount of subsurface flow during field surveys. Further downstream, the valley slope increases and the stream flow becomes confined to a single thread, meandering channel. This area was surveyed as the downstream reference reach (UTSC -1B), and is located approximately 400 feet downstream from UTSC -IA, and 400 feet upstream of a powerline transmission corridor. Channel dimension along this downstream reach is relatively consistent, with riffle and pools formed by both channel meanders and woody debris. UTs to Brice Creek: Eight reference reach sites were identified along three separate headwater tributaries to Brice Creek in the Croatan National Forest, south of New Bern. These sites were identified as potential reference reaches through the help of NCDWQ staff who had reviewed the sites in the past. The three tributary drainages were labeled Sites 1, 2, and 3; Site 1 was the northern most site and Site 3 was the southern most site. Three reference reaches were identified and surveyed along Site 1. Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR -IA, UTBR -113, and UTBR -1C) are 96, 160, and 230 acres, respectively. UTBR -IA is the most upstream reach and exhibits diffuse flow patterns across a wetland floodplain, with few distinct channel features. UTBR -113 is the middle reach within the drainage and exhibits a more braided flow pattern with some sections of defined channel bed and banks. UTBR -1C is the further reach downstream and was located in an area where overall valley slope increases. The reach exists as a single thread, meandering stream channel with well defined bed and banks and a relatively constant channel dimension. Three reference reaches were also identified along Site 2. Drainage areas were smaller than those identified for Site 1. Drainage areas for the three reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR - 2A, UTBR -213, and UTBR -2C) are 25, 42, and 61 acres, respectively. The flow characteristics for each reach were similar to Site 1, with the most upstream reach (UTBR -2A) exhibiting diffuse flow with poorly defined channel features, the middle reach (UTBR -213) exhibiting braided flows, and the downstream reach (UTBR -2C) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form. Two reference reaches were identified along Site 3, which is a separate drainage just to the south of Site 2. Drainage areas for the two reaches from upstream to downstream (UTBR -3A and UTBR -313) are 45 and 58 acres, respectively. The most upstream reach (UTBR -3A) exhibiting braided and diffuse flow with some channel features that were not consistent and were not well 2 defined along the reach length. The downstream reach (UTBR -3B) exhibiting a single thread, meandering channel form with well defined bed and banks. Determining the Factors Affecting Channel Formation Most stream restoration projects that have been completed in the Coastal Plain have involved the construction of a single- thread, meandering stream channel. As discussed in Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007), restoration of a single - thread channel is likely not appropriate for many headwater systems. In some situations, formation of a wetland valley with braided, diffuse flow will be more appropriate. By performing assessments on a range of reference sites (i.e. varying drainage areas, valley slopes, and channel definition), our goal was to determine the conditions under which different channel features (or no channel features at all) are formed. This understanding would allow for predicting the conditions under which various channel forms are developed, which could then be applied to future stream restoration projects in Coastal Plain headwater streams. As discussed previously, we identified several reference sites that began as defined valleys with indications of periodic surface flows, and developed into more defined stream systems down valley as drainage area increased. Once these drainages were identified, specific reference reaches were delineated along the fall of the valley and survey were conducted to document channel form (or lack of channel form). Reference reaches were divided into three categories based on visible channel form: Poorly Defined Channel - These systems exhibit a defined valley and evidence of periodic surface flow, but lack defined channel features. Channel bed and bank features cannot be identified, or if they can be identified, are poorly defined and only evident for short distances before their definition is lost. These reaches were commonly found at the upper most portions of the headwater drainage where flow events are not frequent and do not have sufficient energy to form channel features. Moderately Defined Channel — These systems exhibit relatively constant bed and bank features, but the channel dimensions (cross - sectional area and shape) are highly variable. Flows are confined to one variable size channel in some areas, and multiple thread channels in other areas. Channel form appears to be defined mostly through localized scour, small debris jams, and vegetation. Well Defined Channel — These systems can be considered typical, single - thread reference reach quality channels. Channel banks are obvious and constant, and sandy bed material is common. Channel dimension is relatively constant, with alternating riffle and pool areas. Some pools are formed by stream meanders while others are formed by scour from woody debris. Channel form is defined primarily through fluvial processes. Each identified reference reach was surveyed along approximately 200 feet of its length. Cross - sections were surveyed at representative locations to document the dimension of any channel features, the width of the valley, and the general topography of the valley bottom. A longitudinal profile was also surveyed along the apparent center of the flow pathway, to determine overall slope, depth of a pools and riffles (if present), and variations in topography. Along reference reaches that exhibited well defined channels, surveys methods followed those used for traditional reference reach stream surveys that document channel dimension, pattern, and profile. In simplest terms, the energy of flowing water is determined by its velocity and depth. Formation of a defined stream channel begins when flowing water has sufficient energy to begin the processes of scour, headcutting, and sediment transport. We used valley slope as a surrogate for flow velocity: the higher the valley slope, the higher the velocity of flowing water in the stream system during storm events. We used drainage area as a surrogate for flow depth and quantity: the higher the drainage area, the higher the volume of water (and depth of flowing water) for a given storm event. Each surveyed reference reach was classified as either a poorly defined, moderately defined, or well defined channel, based on visual observations during field surveys. Valley slope and drainage area data for each surveyed reference reach is provided in Chart 1 below. Chart 1. Headwater reference reach data relating channel formation to drainage area and slope. The collected data indicate that channel form can be predicted by measurements of valley slope and drainage area. As valley slope and drainage area increase, the energy of flowing water also increases and tends to form more defined stream channels. While boundaries have been placed on the graph to illustrate approximate ranges for each channel type, these boundaries should not be considered as distinct thresholds that trigger a change from one channel form to another. The data should be used to indicate ranges in which a particular channel form is likely to develop. In fact, reference sites that fell near the boundary of two channel forms were often difficult to classify distinctly as one of the three defined channel forms based on visual observations. For example, a reference site that plots near the boundary between a well defined and a moderately defined channel will usually display some characteristics of both. Other results that were derived from this analysis are summarized below: Drainage area alone is not a good predictor of channel form. For example, at a drainage area of approximately 100 acres, all three defined channel forms were identified on reference sites. M The document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007) states that "... According to data being assembled by NCDWQ (Periann Russell, DWQ, personal communication) watershed less than 25 acres in size will not support a headwater system." Our data agree with this assessment. All identified reference sites were based on the presence of a defined valley and upstream drainage area, and evidence of periodic surface flow. The smallest drainage area of our evaluated reference sites was approximately 25 acres. The document Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain (2007) also states that "... Typically, sites with watersheds less than 100 acres would not support a stream with defined bed and bank." Our data do not support this assessment. We identified two separate reference sites with drainage areas of 57 and 61 acres that displayed consistent bed and bank features, and well as fluvial bedform features. These sites were located within relatively steep valleys, where the small headwater valley transitioned into a deeper valley of a larger stream system. Acknowledgements The author would like to thank PCS Phosphate, who sponsored the research presented in this paper and provided access to field sites and past data. CZR, Inc. and specifically Ms. Julia Berger provided invaluable assistance with identification and review of potential reference sites, and evaluation of collected data. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (Ms. Periann Russel) provided information regarding the location of reference sites within the Croatan National Forest. References US Army Corps of Engineers and North Carolina Division of Water Quality. April 4, 2007. Information Regarding Stream Restoration with Emphasis on the Coastal Plain. 21.0 APPENDIX G - JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DETERMINATION MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 21 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT Action Id. SANS'- 2008.02655 County: Beaufort U.S.G.S. Quad: Ransomville NOTIFICATION OF.IURTSDICfIONAL DETERMINXI'TON PropertyOwnedAgent: Chad Poole Address: 4858 Sidney Road Belhaven, North Carolina 278111 Telephone No.: 252 - 943 -1932 Property description: Slew (acres) 125 acre , Nearest Town Ball) NearestWocrway Sail Chi Ire's Creek River Basin Tor- Pamlico USGS HUC 03020104 Coordinates N 35.452835 W - 76.76.726215 Location description 1_25 acre troct (Pinta• 15005359) located on Peoples Road (SR 1738) off Highway 99 adineent to Saint Ctnlrc c "Creek in path. neautort County. North Carannal. Indicate Which of the Follmvine Apnhv: A. Preliminary Determination _ Based on preliminary information, there may be wetlands on the above described property. We strongly suggest you have this property inspected to determine the extent of Department of 0e Army (DA) jurisdiction. To be considered final, a jurisdictional determination must be verified by the Corps. '"is preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process ( Reference 33 CFR Part 331). 11. Approved Determination There are Navigable Wmcrs of the United States within the above described property subject to the pennit requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of the Clown Water Act. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this detenmination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years front the date of Ibis notification. X Thera arc wetlands on the above described property subject to the pennit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWAx33 USC $ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification. _ We strongly suggest you have the wetlands on your properly delineated. Due to the size of your property and/or our present workload, the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner. Fora more timely delineation, you may wish to obtain a consultant. To be considered final, any delineation must be verified by the Corps. X The wetland on your property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by the Corps. We strongly suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by tine Corps. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may he relied upon for a period not to exceed five yeas. _ The wetlands have been deline,'ated and surveyed and arc accurately depicted on the plat signed by the Corps Regulatory Otliciad identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date ofthis notification. _ 'llere are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed rive years from the date of this notification. X The property I% located in one ofthe 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Washington, NC, at (252) 946 -6481 to determine their requirements. Page 1 of 2 Action Id. 5AW- 2008 -02655 Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). If you have any questions regarding this detenninntion and/or die Corps regulatory program, please contact David L. Shaeffer tt 252- 975 -1616 ext. 30. C. Basis For Determination This site exhibits Wetland criteria as described in the 1987 Corns Wetland Delineation Manual and is Part ofn broad Continuum of wetlands connected to Saint Claire'sCreck. a tributary of the 1'andico River. D. Remarks E. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B. above) 'This correspondence constihmlcs an approved jurisdictional determination for the about described siCc, lfyoti o ,icct to this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR part 331. Enclosed you will find a Notification of Appcal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. 1f you request to appeal this determination you must submit a completed KPA form to the following address: District Engineer. Wilmington Regulatory Division Attn:David L. Shaeffer, Project Manager, Washington Regulatory Field Office Post 011ice Box 1000 Washington, North Carolina 27889 In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal under 33 CFR pail 331.5, and that it has been received by the District Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you decide to submit an IVA form, it must Ix received at the above address by 11/1612008. tilt is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the District Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondeacc." Corps Regulatory Official:. ICJ Date 09/16/2008 Expiration Date 09/16/1013 The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at h11m:1 /regutatory.ustmcesu .cttmL to complete the survey online. Copy tarnished: Page 2of2 Wetland as Flagged on Stephen and Chad Poole Tracts Bath, NC (Pin # 15005359) 0 0 Legend 0 Flagged Wetlands selection 2 Chad and Stephen Poole 0 700 1,400 2,800 w . -/ , E Feet S 22.0 APPENDIX H - RESPONSE TO EEP COMMENTS ON DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 22 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT Michael Baker Engineering, Inc, 8000 Regency Parkway Salle 600 Cary, North Carolina 27518 Phone: 919.463.5488 Fax: 919.463.5490 July 2, 2013 NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699.1652 Attn: Ms. Heather Smith, Project Manager Subject: Response Letter to NCEEP Review Comments St. Clair Creek Draft Mitigation Plan Service Contract No. 003986 NCEEP Project ID No. 95015 RFP No. 16- 003570 Baher Project No. 125116. Dear Ms. Smith, Please find enclosed the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and our responses to your review comments dated May 20, 2013, regarding the St. Clair Creep Stream & Wetland Restoration Project located in Beaufort County, NC. We have revised the Draft Mitigation Plan documents to produce the Final Draft Mitigation Plan in response to the referenced review comments: 1. General: Change EEP Project ID No. to 95015 everywhere and include Contract Number as 003986. Response: Changed the NCEEP Project ID No. to 95015 and included the Contract Number on the Title Sheet. 2. Executive Summary: 2nd paragraph, remove last two sentences. Response: Reinoved the last N)o sentences. 3. Executive Summary: 3rd paragraph, remove "although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (LWP) area ". Response: Removed "although it is not located in a Local Watershed Planning (L WP) area 4. Executive Summary: 3rd paragraph, change NCEEP to RBRP. Response: Changed NCEEP to RBRP. 5. Executive Summary: Table ES.2, remove references to microtopography. Response: Removed references to rnicrotopography from Table ES. 2. 6. Section 1.0: 5th paragraph, change NCEEP to RBRP. Response: Changed WEEP to RBRP: 7. Section 2.0: Page 2 -2 remove period after 1st paragraph. Response: Removed period after 1st paragraph. S. Section 2.0: Include a brief description of watershed assessment method and discussion on any watershed hydrology calculations performed. Response: Included a brief statement in regards to using USGS quad maps and DDAR data to delineate the watersheds for both UT2 and UT3. 9. Figure 2.5: Adjust figure so soil map abbreviation appears for the areas with UT3 and portions of UT2 Response: Adjusted Figure 2.5 to lower the abbe eviation for Tomotley fine sandy loam (To) from underneath the legend. 10. Section 6.0: Page 6 -1 & 6 -2, remove Non - forested Wetland Credits portion of the table. Response: Removed Non forested Wetland Credits portion of the table. 11. Section 7.1.2: Provide additional information on the proposed minor grading activities. Note that the USACE may consider any grading of the surface in excess of 6" as wetland creation and not wetland restoration. Response: While deeper grading along the centerline of the valley will be required in places in order to avoid any hydrologic trespass, the amount of grading has been minimized as much as possible. Also, grading activities within the boundaries of the proposed wetland restoration areas are anticipated to be less* than six inches, thereby reducing the concerns over possible wetland creation claims. The proposed restored headwater valley will tie into existing ground outside of the proposed wetland restoration areas. Only areas of tnnnatrnral topography such as hummocks or spoil piles will be .significantly graded within the proposed wetland restoration boundaries. Some grading may be required to smooth areas created during timbering activities within these areas. A statement has been added within Section 7.1.2 that all grading within the proposed wetland restoration areas is anticipated to be less than 6 inches and will occur only in limited areas. 12. Section 7.1.2: include NCWAM classification of Headwater Forest. Response: Included NCWAM classification of Headwater Forest. 13. Section 7.1.2: indicate wetland grading will not encompass the entire area. Response: See response to connnent ]]above. 14. Section 9.1.1: Indicate whether monitoring gauges will be on each tributary, to document flow success. Response: Indicated that monitoring gauges will be installed on UT2 and UT3 in order to doctnnentflow success. 15. Section 9.2.2: Wetland hydrology success criteria need to be stated as a percent of the growing season. The current description will generate comments similar to UT to Mill Swamp during the IRT review. Response: Changed the success criteria to be 12% of the growing season. 16. Table 10.1: The first three rows covering dimension, pattern, and profile, don't seem to be relevant to this type of restoration, and were not mentioned in the narrative. Unless these are in some other way relevant to the project, please remove, or explain their relevance in the narrative. Response: Removed the dimension, pattern, acrd profile roes. The sedinient sampling row Was also removed. 17. Section 16.0: On page 16 -6 — Include a letter or e-mail from Beaufort County floodplain manager indicated that there was no action needed regarding FEMA compliance Response: A copy of the email ftorn the Beat fort County Floodplain Manager stating that no action is needed regarding FEMA compliance has been included in Section 16 18. Section 17.1.1: On page 17 -2 of Table 17.1 — In the document, it indicated that UT2 and UT3 are intermittent streams. However, the feature type for UT2 and UT3 in the table 17.1 stated as ditches. Double check and explain. Response: Changed UT2 rating to Perennial Channelized Str°eanz and UT3 rating to Intermittent Channelized Stream. The stream calls are described /explained in Section 17.1.1 and stream forms are included in the appendices. 19. Section 17.3.2: Page 17 -13, show data for UT3 in Table 17.3 Response: Included data for° UT3 in Table 17.3. 20. Section 17.6.2: 4th paragraph highest hydroperiod for Ref. Well 2 is 35.8 %, correct range and state whether rainfall was normal in the reviewed years. Response: Corrected hydr operiod range and added a column. to Table 17.6 which included the drought conditions during the growing season, for the reviewed years. This information is broken into percentage of the growing season for each drought category that occurred that year. This information is fr °orn the NCDENR Division of Water Qualio3 Drought Monitor History for Beaufort County. 21. Construction Sheets: Correct EEP address on the title sheet, 217 West Jones St, Raleigh, NC 27603. Response: Corrected the NCEEEP address on title sheet. 22. Sheet 6- Explain grading outside of conservation easement. Response: The construction of the graded valley will continue until the existing fare? road. This proposed grading will be conducted to avoid the strean7 being abruptly funneled /transitioned down and allow,for natural multi - thread channel fornation. 23. Show location of construction entrance, temporary stream crossings and permanent stream crossings on the erosion control plan. Response: The locations of construction entrances are currently shown on Sheet EC -4 off of the public road (Peoples Road). The locations of the Tewporary Stream Crossings have been added. There are no proposed Permanent Stream Crossings proposed but the locations of the proposed culverts have been called out on Sheet EC -6 If you have any questions concerning the Final Draft Mitigation Plan or Baker's responses to your comments, please feel free to contact me at 919 -481 -5748 or via email at jbyers inbakercorp.com, We look forward to the Mitigation Plan approval and Task 3 milestone completion. Since ely, Jacob Byers, P.E., Project Manager Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 23.0 APPENDIX I - NCIRT COMMENTS ON FINAL DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN AND RESPONSE MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 23 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT REPLY TO ATTENTION OF CESAW -RG /Crumbley DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 15 August, 2013 SUBJECT: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project, Beaufort County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2008 -02655 NCEEP #: 95015 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 14 August, 2013 1. T. Crumbley, USACE, 13 August, 2013: • Pg. 9 -1, 9.1.1, We have a concern over the number of events proposed for meeting success. It is proposed for these headwater features to have gauges installed within the braided channels along with visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days for only 2 events within 5 years. Due to the small drainage areas for these features (32 ac on UT3 and 90 ac on UT2), please be advised that if UT2 or UT3 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be subject to reductions in stream credit generation. • Pg. 11 -1, In the Final Mitigation Plan, the long -term management plan discussion should be expanded upon. Particularly if the site is to be transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program. 2. Eric Kulz, NCDWR; 14 August, 2013: • DWR CO has reviewed the mitigation plan, and the site appears to be a good candidate for restoration. In addition, DWR WaRO staff visited the site on Monday, 8/12 and concurred that we have no comments. FYI looking at Figure 2.2, it was unclear why the watershed delineation for UT 2 ended at Peoples Road. I calculated the watershed sizes using the USGS streamstats website, and they may be larger than reported. Streamstats calculated 358 acres for UT 2 and 43 acres for UT 3, so they may be larger than reported. Also, WaRO personnel confirmed fairly well- defined valleys (for Beaufort County) on the site. August 20, 2013 US Army Corps of Engineers 11405 Falls of Neuse Road Wake Forest, NC 27557 Attn: CESAW -RG /Crumbley Michael Baker Engineering, Inc, 8000 Regency Parkway Suite 660 Cary, North Carolina 27518 Phone, 919.463.5488 Fax: 919.463.5499 Subject: Response Letter to NCIRT Comments St, Clair Creek Final Draft Mitigation Plan Service Contract No, 003986 NCEEP Project ID No. 95015 RFP No. 16- 003570 Barer Project No. 125116. Dear Mr. Crumbley, Please find enclosed the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and our responses to your review comments dated August 15, 2013, regarding the St. Clair Creek Stream & Wetland Restoration Project located in Beaufort County, NC. We have revised the Final Draft Mitigation Plan documents to produce the Final Mitigation Plan in response to the referenced review comments: T. Crumbley, USACE; 13 August, 2013 Pg. 9 -1, 9.1.1, we have a concern over the number of events proposed for meeting success. It is proposed for these headwater features to have gauges installed within the braided channels along with visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days for only 2 events within 5 years. Due to the small drainage areas for these features (32 ac on UT3 and 90 ac on UT2), please be advised that if UT2 or UT3 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be subject to reductions in stream credit generation. Response: Baker understands this concern but use feel confident that the success criteria. can be achieved as stated. • Pg.11 -1, in the Final Mitigation Plan, the long -term management plan discussion should be expanded upon. Particularly if the site is to be transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program Response: The following language was added to Section 11.0: The NCDENR Division ofNatun°al Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest - bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of f snds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS 113A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fiend may be used only for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if' applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment fitnds will he used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest finds nds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. Eric Kulz, NCDWR; 14 Aul4ust, 2013 • DWR CO has reviewed the mitigation plan, and the site appears to be a good candidate for restoration. In addition, DWR WaRO staff visited the site on Monday, 8112 and concurred that we have no comments. Response: Noted. • FYI looking at Figure 2.2, it was unclear why the watershed delineation of UT2 ended at Peoples Road. I calculated the watershed sizes using the USGS sreamstats website, and they may be larger than reported. Streamstats calculated 358 acres for UT2 and 43 acres for UT3, so they may be larger than reported. Also, WaRO personnel confirmed fairly well- defined valleys (for Beaufort County) on the site. Response: While using the Streamstats website is a great tool that I've found to be very helpful on other recent projects, particularly in the mountains and piedmont, I feel that in this particular case it does not account for Haan -made drainage ways very well. Looking solely at the LIDAR data, I would agree with the Streamstats delineation but field investigations showed that significant portions of this drainage area are intercepted by roadside ditches and canals and diverted around the headwaters of this project. Some of this drainage does howeverflow into UT2 directly below the downstream terminus of the restoration project. If you have any questions concerning the Final Draft Mitigation Plan or Baker's responses to your comments, please feel free to contact me at 919 - 481 -5748 or via email at ibyers a),mbakercorp.com. We look forward to the Final Mitigation Plan approval and anticipate Nationwide Permit authorization by the end of October. Sincerely, /Jacob yers, P.E., Project Manager Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. 24.0 APPENDIX J - NCIRT FINAL APPROVAL LETTER MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 24 -1 9/4/2013 MITIGATION PLAN ST. CLAIR CREEK RESTORATION PROJECT - DRAFT DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 REPLY TO ATTENTION OF 3 September, 2013 Regulatory Division Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the St. Clair Creek Draft Mitigation Plan; SAW 2008- 02655; EEP# 95015 Mr. Tim Baumgartner North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program 1652 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652 Dear Mr. Baumgartner: The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team ( NCIRT) during the 30 -day comment period for the St. Clair Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which closed on 14 August, 2013. These comments are attached for your review. Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan. However, the minor issues with the Draft as discussed in the attached comment memo must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN) Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter and a summation of the addressed comments. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit, you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation Rule, please call me at 919 - 846 -2564. Sincerely, Tyler Crumbley Regulatory Specialist Enclosures Electronic Copies Furnished: NCIRT Distribution List CESAW- RG/Wicker CESAW -RG -W /Steffens Heather Smith, NCEEP REPLY TO ATTENTION OF CESAW -RG /Crumbley DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS 69 DARLINGTON AVENUE WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403 -1343 MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD 15 August, 2013 SUBJECT: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project- NCIRT Comments During 30 -day Mitigation Plan Review PURPOSE: The comments and responses listed below were posted to the NCEEP Mitigation Plan Review Portal during the 30 -day comment period in accordance with Section 332.8(8) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule. NCEEP Project Name: St. Clair Creek Restoration Project, Beaufort County, NC USACE AID #: SAW- 2008 -02655 NCEEP #: 95015 30 -Day Comment Deadline: 14 August, 2013 1. T. Crumbley, USACE, 13 August, 2013: • Pg. 9 -1, 9.1.1, We have a concern over the number of events proposed for meeting success. It is proposed for these headwater features to have gauges installed within the braided channels along with visual documentation of surface water flow for 30 consecutive days for only 2 events within 5 years. Due to the small drainage areas for these features (32 ac on UT3 and 90 ac on UT2), please be advised that if UT2 or UT3 does not meet the 30 day flow requirement, or exhibit a prevalence of OHWM indicators as defined in RGL 05 -05, these areas may be subject to reductions in stream credit generation. • Pg. 11 -1, In the Final Mitigation Plan, the long -term management plan discussion should be expanded upon. Particularly if the site is to be transferred to the NCDENR Stewardship Program. 2. Eric Kulz, NCDWR; 14 August, 2013: • DWR CO has reviewed the mitigation plan, and the site appears to be a good candidate for restoration. In addition, DWR WaRO staff visited the site on Monday, 8/12 and concurred that we have no comments. FYI looking at Figure 2.2, it was unclear why the watershed delineation for UT 2 ended at Peoples Road. I calculated the watershed sizes using the USGS streamstats website, and they may be larger than reported. Streamstats calculated 358 acres for UT 2 and 43 acres for UT 3, so they may be larger than reported. Also, WaRO personnel confirmed fairly well- defined valleys (for Beaufort County) on the site.